Fiqh us Sunnah Fall 2010

Commentary on Fiqh al-Sunnah (Part IX)

Basic Outline of the Class

Topic 1:  Actions that ablution (wudhoo) is required for

Topic 2:  Actions that ablution is recommended for

Topic 3: Wiping over the socks

Topic 4: Ghusl

2010-09-26 Class Notes

We are in the midst of discussing things that require wudu which include ritual prayers, circumbulating kaabah, ....

Page 40 - Touching a copy of the Quran

In a letter written to Yemen by the prophet, he said No one is to touch the page of the quran except one who is pure according to mutawaatir hadith (Mutawaatir was translated as continuous transmission).

The hadith indicates that one is not allowed to touch the mushaf except one who is pure.  However the word pure or tahara is a homonym (mushtar), it has more than one meaning. It could imply pure from a major impurity or pure from a minor impurity, or it could mean a believer, or it could mean one who does not have impurities on his body. And you cannot determine which one of the meaning is implied without resorting to additional sources.

Sheikh Jamaal then asked us to cross out three sentences from the translation of the book from “Apparently” .... to ... “makes no sense”.

Al Albaani’s comments:

This statement of Sayyid Sabiq is nothing more than an abridgement of what Shaukani has said in Nael al Autar. So far it is very sound. However the end of it, the hadith which he quotes, Sayyid Sabiq says this hadith is not a clear text prohibiting a person in minor state of impurity from touching the Quran. Albaani says that this is a statement of Sayyid Sabiq and not As Shawkani’s statement. This statement is not consistent with the rest of Sayyid Sabiq’s statements. Sayyid Sabiq says that tahara has many meanings and he says you cannot determine which it is without additional evidences.

And Albaani says how did he come up with the conclusion that it is prohibited to touch the quran in state of major impurity, where is sayyid sabiq’s evidence. How did Sayyid Sabiq choose one of the meanings of tahara. Albaani says that meaning of tahara in this statement is al mumin a believer, regardless of major impurity or minor impurity or if she is in her menses, ... And he presents the hadith which states a mumin does not become impure. So he says that believer is pure and he never becomes impure which supports his conclusion. His second evidence is, that the polytheists should be prohibited from touching the Quran, and his evidence is .... hadith of the prophet where he prohibited the taking of the Quran or not travelling with the Quran in the land of the enemies. [This hadith is recorded by Al-Bukhari and Muslim] The purpose is to not let Quran fall into the hands of the enemies.

What is a mushaf?

Everyone should want to read the Quran and read the Quran on regular basis. And most of us have not memorized the Quran and we need to touch the Quran to read it. And now it has become a moot point.

Is it permissible recite the Quran when you are not in state of wudu or sexual defilement or in your menses or post par tum bleeding?

Can you touch the mushaf when you are not in state of wudu or if you are in state of sexual defilement or in your menses or during post par tum bleeding?

The way it is defined by fuqaha, it is complete copy of the quran in such a form that the majority of the content is the quran. (this is in reference to notes).  A translation of the quran is definitely not a mushaf.

Since now a days the quran is available in so many formats, that it is really irrelevant point. So it clearly points out that the earlier ruling about menstruating women should not touch the quran was incorrect. There is no evidence

Let’s start with the recitation of quran when one is not in the state of wudu.

Is it permissible?

Is it makrooh?

Is it mustahab?

Since this is fiqh class we will focus only on permissibility and not whether it is mustahab or not.

If you say it is permissible, what is the evidence?

Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, Ayesha said, prophet used to make remembrance of Allah swt under all circumstances. Quran is a form of remembrance of Allah swt, this is not direct evidence, it is indirect.

Another hadith from Musnad Ahmed, statement of Ali ibn Talib, he said, the messenger of Allah would answer the call of nature and he would come out and recite the Quran and eat meat. Nothing would keep him from reciting the Quran except sexual defilement.

However there is weakness in this hadith. Shaukani, Nawawi and others have rejected this hadith.

There is another hadith, in which ibn Abbas is describing his stay at his aunt’s house, Maymunah the wife of the prophet and he described when the prophet would wake up and he would wipe his face and read 10 verses of Al-Imran And then he would make wudu. The apparent meaning of this wudu is that prophet woke up from his sleep and we know that sleeping breaks your wudu.

.... the only thing that keeps me from responding to your salaam was the fact that I was not in the state of purity.  Is this narration authentic? There is some weakness, but it has some supporting evidence in Bukhari and Muslim which has led the scholars to believe that it is permissible to read the Quran without wudu but it is preferable to have wudu.

Kamran Habib’s notes for this class

Hadith of Nasai.

Abu Bakr ibn Muhammab ibn Amr ibn Hazm, that letter that the Prophet (saw) wrote to Amr bin Hazm.

Could be from Major, minor, believer or one who does not have impurity on his body. You cannot specify which of those meanings is meant without some other kind of indication.

Cross out, “May not touch the quran”. Don’t know where that came from.

Al-Albani’s comments. Albani starts by quoting syed sabiq. And he says, that this statement from syed sabiq, is basically nothing more than an abridgement from what ash-shawkani has said, Nail al-awtar. So far what he has said is sound, no problem with it. However the end of it, SS says, “this hadith is not a clear text prohibiting the one who is in minor state of impurity for touching the quran”. Al-Albani says this is SS statement and not shawkani’s. Albani’s understanding is that someone in minor state of impurity may touch the quran but someone in major state of impurity may not touch the quran. Albani says that he’s implying that one in major state cannot touch the quran. He says, this statement is not consistent with what syed sabiq was saying.

Syed Sabiq, said you cannot identify which one it means without indication. Al-Albani says, where is his evidence to make that conclusion that at-tahir is not the one in major impurity (implicit meaning).

Word Tahir is mushtarak (homonym) it can mean A,B, or C.

Al-albani says, closer opinion, meaning of Tahir is Mu’min , a believer, regardless of whether he has major or minor or experiencing menses or major impurity on the body. He presents the evidence, “The believer does not become impure.” Al-Albani’s first evidence that supports his conclusion.

Second evidence, the meaning of no one to touch the quran except if he’s pure. Polytheists should be prevented to touch the quran. Based on hadith, Prophet (saw) prevented traveling with the quran to the land of the enemies.

This issue of mushaf has become a moot point. Who can touch mushaf, when and how.

We’ll cover points related to “Is it permissible to recite the quran when you’re not in the state of wudu?” “how about state of sexual defilement?”. “Is it permissible when woman is in her menses or PP bleeding”. Most important would be the one about the women. Then we get to the issue of touching the mushaf. Can you touch it when you’r e not in the state of wudu, how about when you’re sexually defiled and how about when a woman is in her menses or PP bleeding.

Mushaf, the way it is defined:

Complete copy of the quran, compiled in such a way that the majority of that book is the quran. Like the one with ibn abbas’s tafseer, it’s still mushaf but Abdullah yusuf Ali’s would not be considered.


All the things women cannot do, clear text from Allah.

Touching the quran, no clear text whatsoever.

Reciting when one is not in the state of wudi:

Is it permissible? Is it makrooh?

Is it mustahab to be in a state of purity when reciting the quran?

Sahih al-bukhari, Aishah narrated, “the prophet (saw) used to make remembrance of Allah in all circumstances.” Implied evidence. Not direct. Reciting the quran is one form of remembrance. Not the strongest proof.

Musnad Ahmed, statement o f Ali (ra), he said, “messenger of Allah would answer the call of nature and come out and recite the quran and eat meat with us and nothing would stop him from reciting the quran except being in a state of janabah.” (abudawood, nasai, ibn majah, ahmed). Number of scholars have accepted this is hasan/hasan sahih, ibn hibban, khuzaimah, ibn hajr. However there is some weakness in hadeeth, an-nawawi, shawkani, albani reject this hadeeth as weak.

Another hadeeth, ibn Abbas described when he stayed overnight at his aunt’s house. He described how prophet slept and got up in the middle of the night and when he woke up, he would wipe his sleep from his face with his hand and then he read last 10 verses of surah al-imran. And then he went to water skin on the wall, made wudu and prayed. (recorded by al-bukhari). If he was not in need of wudu, he would not have made wudu.

There’s ijma amongst the scholars, that it’s permissible to recite the quran while you’re not in a state of wudu.

Any proof that it may be disliked to read the quran without wudu. Couple of ahadith, in one case he did not reply to salam till he made wudu. “The only thing that kept me from responding to the salam was that I was not in a state of purity.” Has led the scholars to conclude, permissible to recite but preferable to read it in state of wudu. Pretty much an agreement on this.

2010-10-03 Class Notes

Email sent by Sheikh Jamaal to correct the translation in the text book. The correct translation of the portion about Touching a copy of the Qur’an should be:

Cancel out the text that begins with “Apparently, this hadith has a problem ..... until ... makes no sense and replace it with the following text

The hadith indicates that it is not allowed to touch a mushaf except for the one who is taahir (“pure”). However, taahir is a homonym. It is used to refer to one who is free from major defilement, or one who is free of minor defilement, or it can refer to a believer, or it can refer to one who has no impurities on his body. One cannot state which of those is meant without further evidence. Thus, the hadith is not an explicit text demonstrating that one who has a minor defilement is not to touch the mushaf.

The conclusion is that it is permissible to recite the Qur’an while not in the state of wudhu but it is preferable to be in a state of wudhu.

Pg 40 in the text, in which the author talks about touching a copy of the Qur’an without wudhu. (Note, it is page 37 in 2003 edition of the book)

Reciting the Qur’an without touching the Qur’an while one is in a state of major impurity.  Major impurity includes sexual defilement (janaba), menses and post-partum bleeding.  We will divide just into the case of one who is sexually defiled and then will discuss menses and post-partum bleeding separately.  For whatever reason, the Ulimah have separated these categories as well.  

Opinion: Permissible to recite Qur’an even during state of sexual defilement

Ibn Abbas, Sayyid ibn Musayyeb, Salman Al Farsi, At Tabari, Bukhari, Dhahiri school of fiqh,  Al Albani: they are all of the opinion that it is permissible for the sexually defiled individual to recite the Qur’an.  They do not differentiate between a portion or the entirety of the Qur’an.  

Some of the evidence that they present include the hadith of A’isha, that the Prophet ﷺ would make remembrance of Allah  swt under all circumstances which would include if he was in a state of janaba.  Does this necessarily include reciting the Qur’an?  Aside: Where is the burden of proof, the one who say you can recite the Qur’an or cannot recite the Qur’an?  In this case, the burden of proof is on the one who says it is NOT permissible to recite the Qur’an in the state of major impurity.

They also cite the letter the Prophet saas wrote to the Emperor of Rome, in which he included a few verses of the Qur’an.  The argument is that if the mushrikin can touch it and recite it, then obviously one who is muslim and is in sexual defilement could do so.  What do you think of the argument as a whole?  Can a mushrik make ghusl and purify himself?  

There is a Hassan narration from Ibn Abbas where he was reciting a portion of the Qur’an while in a state of janabah and it was mentioned to him.  He said, what I have within me (i.e. the whole Qur’an memorized) is more than what I just recited.

 Is a statement like this of a Sahabi hujjah?  Is it contradicted by other opinions of the Sahabah?  What evidence supports which Sahabi?  We will see later that this statement conflicts with statements of other Sahabah (who disapproved of Ibn Abbas’ comment).  They invoke a legal maxim: Original freedom of responsibility of prohibition - it cannot be said that it is forbidden or not allowed unless they can present a specific authentic proof.  

Opinion: It is NOT permissible to recite the Qur’an during the state of sexual defilement

The majority of the scholars (the four schools and Umar Khataab, Hasan Al Basiri, ) say that it is not permissible to recite the Qur’an in a state of janaba. What is the evidence? This was the entire classroom’s opinion before we started the discussion.

An incident with Ali Ibn Thaalib, recorded by Nisai, Majah, Ahmed, others, in which the following occurred: (went through this last class).  Ali used to go relieve himself and recite Qur’an and come eat with us. the only thing that would keep him away from reciting Qur’an was sexual defilement.  This is a weak narration and has some question with respect to the meaning.

There is also another narration in the Musnad imam Ahmed in which Ali ibn Thaalib made wudhu and after which said “this is how I saw the Messenger of Allah making wudhu,” and then recited Qur’an.  “This is for the one who is not in sexual defilement.”  He continued and said “As for those who are in sexual defilement, he cannot say even one verse.”  Suhaib al Arnaut said that the chain for this hadith is hasan.  This is probably better narrated as a statement from Ali not from the Prophet ﷺ.  It is an authentic narration up to and including Ali but not the Prophet ﷺ.  

There are other narrations that are either very weak or weak, also from the Musnad from Imam Ahmed.  

There is statement from Umar ibn Khattab and ibn Masood that it is not permissible to recite the Qur’an during sexual defilement. Ibn Masoud: They present a rational argument in which they say that a person can make ghusl using water or taymimum at any time and therefore has no excuse not to do so before reciting the Qur’an.  They can say certain things other than the Qur’an, like the bismillah and dhikr.  Some say that the individual may not say anything.  

Analysis of the two differing opinions

We don’t have any strong or authentic narration from the Prophet ﷺ that points to the fact that it is not allowed to recite while in a state of janaba.  As we said before, the burden of proof is on those who say it is not allowed.  We are not saying this is the best state to be in while reciting.

Next case: A woman while in her menses

Can she recite anything from the Qur’an?  

Opinion: It is NOT permissible that a woman in her menses can recite the Qur’an

A woman is not allowed to recite anything of the Qur’an.  This is the opinion of the Hanafis and Shafi’s.  It is the well known opinion amongst the Hanbalis as well.  Some narrations from Ali and Umar pointing to this.

Among the Malikis, they differ about whether the blood is still flowing or if the blood has stopped and she hasn’t made ghusl yet.

The most common opinion among them is that she is not to recite under any such circumstances.

Opinion: It is permissible that a woman in her menses can recite the Qur’an

She is free to recite the Qur’an completely.  This is the opinion of As Shafi’ (his old opinion), Ibn Hazm, Ibn Taymiyyah (who also attributes this opinion to Abu Hanifa), Also opinion of ibn Abbas and Said bin Musyyab. Also these scholars held this opinion: at-tabari, ibn mundhir, ibn qudamah, ash-shawkani.

Opinion: It is permissible that a woman in her menses can recite one or two verses Qur’an

We will not discuss this opinion.

Supporting Evidence: Not permissible for a woman in her menses to recite the Qur’an

The hadith given by Ibn Umar, the sexually defiled and the menstruating women are not to recite anything from the Qur’an.  Many scholars say that this hadith is weak.  It has been rejected by many including Al Bukhari and others.  

There is another hadith that says, the menstruating women or post-partum bleeding are not to mention anything from the Qur’an.  This hadith is even weaker than the previously mentioned one.

Thirdly, they make an analogy between the sexually defiled person and the menstruating woman.  First they start with the conclusion that the sexually defiled person is not allowed to recite the Qur’an.  Secondly, they make a conclusion that the sexually defiled person is in a similar state to the menstruating woman.  This is “qiyyas within qiyyas.”  

Al Qiyyas ma al farq (sp?).  There is a popular expression one will see in books of fiqh: analogy while there is a difference between the two cases.  When making analogies, the two cases should be similar.  A menstruating woman is not able to remove her state of impurity as a person who is sexually defiled is able to do so.  

≈Weak hadith are prominent in books of fiqh.  Once these hadith become accepted and passed on within these books, it becomes difficult to shake an opinion based on weak hadith.

Supporting Evidence: Permissible for a woman in her menses to recite the Qur’an

This was a question of need during the time of the Prophet ﷺ and after as well; it should have been addressed clearly within the Sunnah.  This is a clear sign of the weakness of the first opinion.  

The hadith from Sahih Muslim in which it is narrated that the Prophet ﷺ used to always remember Allah swt if referenced frequently.

A hadith from Al Bukhari and Muslim that talks about all the women on the day of Eid were ordered to go to the place of prayer to make takbir and dua’a, hoping for the blessings of that day and purification from their sins.  There is nothing explicit here about reciting from the Qur’an.

There is another narration, from A’isha, when making Hajj and entering into a state of menses.  She informed the Prophet ﷺ about it and he said to perform all of the celebrations of those on Hajj but do not make tawwaf around the Kabah until you have cleared your menses.    

[When making dua’a, one is most likely making dua’a from the Qur’an].  At best, this is not direct evidence but there is some implication that she is going to be reciting some verses of the Qur’an.  

Then there is what can be considered a logical argument that the women don’t have the capability of removing their menses and post-partum bleeding in some days can go up to 60 days which would be very burdensome on the women.  Based on “flimsy” evidence, how can one say a woman cannot recite the Qur’an within up to a 60 day window?

Some authors also point out that studying the different narrations regarding this and comparing them to the narrations regarding the sexually defiled person, the narrations preventing the menstruating women from reciting are much weaker than the narrations preventing the sexually defiled person from reciting the Qur’an.    

A positive rational proof has to do with the different verses in the Qur’an telling us to ponder and reflect upon the meanings and verses of the Qur’an.  To limit this outside of menstruation and other states without strong evidence now becomes an even bigger issue.

One of Ibn Taymiyyah’s main arguments is that since women were menstruating during the time of the Prophet ﷺ , then something should have been narrated from him if there was a prohibition against reciting Qur’an while in this state.  

Analysis of the two differing opinions

What, if any conclusion, can we make here?

Women are able to recite the Qur’an while in their menses based on lack of evidence and on rational arguments.

We still have one big issue left for them: that is the issue of touching the Qur’an.  

2010-10-10 Class Notes

Permissibility of touching Qur’an while in state of impurity

One of the common definitions of the mushaf is something that contains the book of Allah (the Qur’an) between its two covers.  Even the definition of mushaf is not really agreed upon.  The prophet used to refer to it as Quran.

Some use the word mushaf in that it relates to anything we say is a mushaf, whether it contains a lot of the Qur’an or a small fraction of it.

Is it obligatory to be in the state of wudhu when touching the mushaf?

Class poll: how many of you believe that one must be in a state of wudhu to touch the Qur’an.  

Among the ulimah, the four imams say that it is forbidden to touch the mushaf without being in a state of wudhu.  This is also the conclusion of Ibn Taymiyyah.

A second opinion is that it is mustahab to have wudhu when touching the mushaf. This is the conclusion of the Iraqi scholars of the Shafi’i school.  Also the position of the Dhahiri madhab and Ibn al Mundr (has a very important book concerning topics in which there is ijma’a or consensus).   

Also important to note at the outset that many of the early scholars in the early madahab related to this question simply quotes the verses from Surah Al Waq’iah verse 79 and that was sufficient for them.  We will discuss these verses later.

According to As Shawkani, Ibn Abbas, Zaid Ibn Ali and others were of the opinion that a person with a minor defilement may touch the Qur’an.  Shawkani himself says that there is no evidence proving otherwise.  Al Albani also came to the same conclusion that it is permissible to touch the Qur’an in this case.  

Discussion of Surah Al Waqi’ah verse 79 as evidence for their opinion

لا يمسه إلا المطهرون

Muhsin Khan

Which (that Book with Allah) none can touch but the purified (i.e. the angels).

Sugar-coated commentary:

Anyone who uses this verse to prove that someone who is not in the state of wudhu cannot touch the Qur’an has either never read the tafseer of that verse or has forgotten the tafseer of the verse while pursuing the fiqh aspect.  Sometimes when a scholar writes in one field and then builds something in another field, they often can forget the work that was done before.

Is this verse a command?  It is not a command.  It is a statement of fact.  There are times where a statement of fact/habr can imply a command/imperative, but that is not the norm; there has to be evidence to prove this connection for each instance.

Secondly, we have the context of the verse.  From verses 77-80, Allah swt says that this indeed is an honorable recited in a book well-guarded (and hidden).  

[Ibn Qayyim student of Taymiyyah and not to be confused with ibn al Jawzi]

Al Mutaharrun also implies that they are pure by their nature and not someone who purifies themselves. If you go to Al Tabari’s tafseer, he says it is a reference to book that is with Allah swt, and he says that it is opinion of  ibn Abbas and others.

ibn Abbas, Ikrimah, .... Mujahid and others state that mutaharrun is with reference to angels and not humankind.

Al Tabari records that the book in Allah’s presence is only touched by angels while the book on earth is touched by everyone. Al Tabari did not record in any of his tafseer that it implies that this verse is saying that Quran cannot be touched by anyone free from major or minor impurities.

In conclusion, concerning that this verse is evidence of touching the Quran in state of pure is incorrect understanding of this verse. In essence you cannot tie this verse to the evidence for being free from major and minor impurities to touch the Quran is gross misunderstanding of this verse.

Ibn Taymiyyah says that we should try to be among the pure to touch the Qur’an.

So what other evidence do we have that we have be free from impurities to touch the Qur’an?

There is a hadith that states that no one but the pure shall touch the Quran. We discussed this hadith earlier and we did not analyse the comments by Al Albani. This hadith is recorded by number of different people with different chains, all of the chains are weak or very weak. Another narration, in which prophet said to a sahaba that do not touch the quran except in the state of purity, another narration is while you are in state of purity, slightly different wording.

The letter that prophet sent to Amr ibn Hazm who was his governor in Yemen. The letter stayed in the family of Amr ibn Hazm. The lengthiest narration and the ones going back to the prophet are weak. Other narrations that do not go back to the prophet have one break. But with supporting evidence we can say that this hadith is hasan. Al Albaani raises it to the level of sahih.

Before moving on, a theoretical question: Let’s consider three variations of a narration and see what we can conclude from them?

لا يمس القران إلا طاهر  Weak--Strongest

لا يمس القران إلا و انت على طهر  Weak

لا يمس القران إلا و انت طاهر   Weak

Sheikh wrote three statements ranging from strongest weak to weak and weak. Then he discussed three statements about population of muslims in India which are all weak in their sources and then conclude from those three sources that the lowest estimate might be the best estimate. ie take the minimum of what the narration says or we cannot take any of the narrations. Either you take the least common denominator or simply ignore all of them.

So the three choices are illa taahar إلا طاهر , al tuhur على طهر , and anta taahar انت طاهر . And the sheikh says that we will consider the least common denominator from the three variations and we will consider the narration that says illa taahar إلا طاهر

Defintion of tahaara

Taahir is a homonym, it has more than one meaning.

1. Taahir refers to a believer.

Some scholars say that it might be used to refer to a believer. All of their evidences are negative statements and not direct statements saying that a believer is taahir. Their evidence is a Surah Taubah in which Allah swt says that polytheists are impure (to mean spiritual impurity).  There is also hadith about sexual defilement by Abu Huraira, the prophet said that the believer does not become impure. Based on these evidences they say that taahar can mean a believer. So one argument against them would be that Allah swt does refer to the Muslims are tahaar. There is a difference between mutataahir and taahir, mutataahir means one who purifies themselves.

2. Tahaara means free from major impurities.

Evidence for this is not strong either. They quote Surah Maida which states that if you are in state of sexual impurity, then purify yourself.

3. Free from minor impurities

Hadith of prophet where he wanted to wipe over his sandals to purify them and he said leave them since I entered them in state of purity.

4. Someone who does not have any physical impurities on them

How do we approach homonyms (mushtariq)?

So which definition of taahar  would you use when understanding the narration of illa taahar? What is the general opinion when dealing with terms that have more than one meaning.

One approach from Shafiees is that if the different meanings do not contradict each other, then use all of the meanings of the word. Sheikh is suspicious about this strange principle. Can you refer to all of the meanings of taahara, apply all four of them (homonym) ? Do people generally speak like that? And Quran is not outside of how people speak.

Some Hanafis are of the opinion that if the homonym means in terms of negation, homonym applies to all possibilities.. But if it’s in terms of positive, you must find out X, and you do the minimum.

Majority of shafiees and hanafis say that there is one meaning of the homonym and you need to find evidence for that definition of the homonym.

Corollary: What should you do if you cannot find evidence for any definition of the homonym, then you should drop the evidence that requires you to choose arbitrary meaning of a homonym.

Ash-Shawkani’s opinion, because if you choose the meaning of tahaara to mean believer then you are contradicting one of the statements of the prophet, which says that the believer cannot become impure.

Supporting evidence that it is prohibited to touch the Quran while in state of impurity to identity what is the correct definition of tahaar.

Famous story of Umar who wants to go and kill the prophet and then he visited his sister, he asked to touch the Quran, and he was asked to purify before touching the Quran. This story has problems both with chain and the text. If a disbeliever makes wudu or ghusl does not make him pure. Niyaat is not correct without imaan.

Saeed ibn Abi Waqaas - this story does not say that it is prohbited, they all point out that you have to be in state of wudu.

Those people who say that you cannot touch Quran without state of wudu is ijmaa’ (consensus among scholars). So is this ijmaa’ correct?

Next time we will study that it is permissible to touch Quran without wudu. This gives us time to think about this issue and ponder upon the correct defintion of taahar for the hadith illa tahaara.

2010-10-17 Class Notes

Don't start with an agenda when you approach fiqh, because if you choose one conclusion then your discussion will be biased. So don't worry about the conclusion before you approach fiqh.

Cannot touch Quran while not in state of wudu

1. Quranic verses

2. Hadith

3. Ijmaa

This group also claims not to touch dirham and dinar because by this time, the money had verses of the Quran on it.

Permissible to touch Quran while not in state of wudu

While researching this issue, sheikh came to the conclusion that you need to double check statements attributed to Sahabah.  What is said exactly and who said it.  

They include ibn Abbas, Annas ibn Malik, Salman al Farsi, Alkama, Ikramah, Mujahid, As-Sha’bi, Said ibn Jubair, Abdul Haq, Jabbir ibn Zaid, Hasan al Basri, others.

By this time, which was after the time of Uthman,  there were copies of the mushaf and it would be normal for people to ask the question whether it is permissible to touch mushaf while not in state of wudu.

For example, the narration from Ibn Abbas, upon which they say that Ibn Abbas was of the opinion that one who is not in a state of wudhu may touch the Qur’an, Ibn Abbas was asked if it was ok to put the mushaf on the bed in which I have sexual intercourse and wet dreams and sweat on it and Ibn Abbas says it is ok to do so (to put the mushaf on the bed).  The chain of narration is good.  

Al Hasan al Basri is quoted to say that no one takes the mushaf when not in the state of wudhu and goes from place to place with it.  

A report regarding Sayed ibn Jubair, someone said they saw him urinate, wash his face, take his mushaf and start reading it.

The hadith that they quoted: how would the group not of that opinion refer to that hadith?  They go back to the question of what does Tahir mean?  Does it mean a believer?

They cite the hadith of A’isha regarding a menstruating woman touching the Qur’an, the Prophet saas asked A’isha to hand her the mat from the mosque.  A’isha said that she was in her menses.  The Prophet saas told her that your menses are not in the hands, so she can reach into the mosque and get the prayer mat.  Aisha could enter the mosque to retrieve the mat while in her menses.

Ibn Taymiyyah quoted the hadith that he used to justify that a woman in her menses can make tawaaf.  The Prophet saas answered the call of nature and returned to the people.  A piece of meat or fruit was brought to him and he started to eat.  He was told that he did not make wudhu.  The Prophet saas replied that he is not intending to pray such that he has to make wudhu.  Ibn Taymiyyah used this as evidence that when making tawaaf, wudhu is not necessary.  

General principle is that there is no obligation to make wudu unless there is clear evidence to make wudu. They say that there is no evidence to make wudu to touch the Quran.

The general logical argument.  This is something that the whole ummah needs to know; almost every woman is going to go through their menses.  If it was prohibited to do this act, the Prophet saas would have made it very clear.  The lack of clear evidence is a sign that there is flexibility here.

The act of ibadah when it comes to the Qur’an

The idea is that this is going to be an act of ibadah, like salaah.  Reading the Qur’an, etc will be done as an act of ibadah.  However, this act of ibadah and benefit of it is going to come from the recitation of the Qur’an; i.e. one does not have to touch the Qur’an.  One who is not in the state of wudhu is allowed to recite the Qur’an by ijma’a.  It is permissible for a woman in her menses to recite the Qur’an.  It is also permissible for her to ponder over the meaning of the Qur’an while reciting.  She can do the act of ibadah but not touch the Qur’an (which we know it is not an act of ibadah); this is a very strange conclusion.  

Does either side have clear-cut evidence that proves their opinion?  The burden of proof is on the side that says one cannot touch the Qur’an in such-and-such state.  This proof is not clearly established according to the sheikh.  

What is the relation between the hadith of A’isha and her entering the mosque to retrieve the mat while in her menses?

The prophet clearly stated that the menses have nothing to do with her hand, It does not have any effect on her hand. So since the menses have nothing to do with woman’s hand and since touching the Quran is not a form of ibaadah, and since woman can recite the quran and ponder over the verses of the Quran which is form of ibadah, so what precludes her from touching the mushaf while in her menses.

Claim of ijmaa is very difficult to prove regarding not being able to touch the quran while in state of menses.

You will find out that statements attributed to the sahaaba are not what they claim to be, and you have to go back and find out the exact statements of the sahaba. So the claim of ijmaa is very dubious. There is no ijmaa on this issue. It is difficult to prove the claim of ijmaa in matters of fiqh.

Some discussion about Mundar who wrote a book on ijma and the fact that he did not mention that there is ijmaa on this issue????

Touching electronic format of the Quran while in state of menses

Bin Baaz says that it is permissible for women in state of menses or post partum bleeding to read the Quran since there is no evidence that she cannot do so, but he goes on to say that she should not touch the copy of the mushaf, she can change the page with a stick, or she can touch the cover with a clean cloth. And since she does not even have to touch the mushaf while reading the Quran electronically.

Sheikh mentions that this distinction that she can read and ponder and touch the mushaf with a stick or a cloth but not with her hand does not make sense. The hadith of Aisha clearly states that menses are not in her hand. We have raised the level of mushaf to such a high degree. There is a natural built in conservatism in our ulema.

So the meaning of tahar in the verse that we stopped during the last class, we can say that tahar here means a believer.

If you are in state of sexual defilement, you should follow ihtiyaat and not touch the mushaf, since it would be for such a short period while you are in this state.  However when a woman is in her menses, she is in that state for a longer period of time, it would be okay for a woman to touch the mushaf.

2010-10-24 Class Notes

Al Albaani’s comments on the passage read from the textbook about the permissibility of touching the mushaf while in the state of sexual defilement.

Al Albaani  is concerned about the last hadith quoted from Ali. He says Tirmidhi is lax about grading hadith that is sahih and then he quotes another scholar that ulema do not rely on hadith graded sahih by Tirmidhi. And he goes on to say that we have to look further and see the grading of the hadith. He then says that .... somebody graded this hadith as weak.  He quotes other scholars such as Nawawi, Baiyakhi, etc.  

And then he says that hadith quoted by Ali contradicts the hadith of Ayesha which states that nothing kept the prophet from mentioning the name of Allah swt.

Sheikh says that there is not a contradiction between the two hadiths. He says that the contradiction only arises if you understand the hadith of Ayesha that mentioning name of Allah swt is equivalent to reading the Quran.

Ibn Hajjar accepted the hadith of Ali as hasan.

It is preferred to be in the state of purity when mentioning the name of Allah, and we intend to mention the name of Allah swt at all times, so it is preferable to be in the state of purity during all times.

What about making adhan?

Is it necessary to be in state of purity? Is it mustahab?

Adhan is definitely different from salah, but it is a great form of dhikr. There is a weak hadith narrated by Tirmidhi, that no one who is in state of impurity can make the adhan.

It is Mustahabb to be in a state of Wudu.

What about iqamah?

There is difference between adhan and iqamah. Scholars dislike it even more to be without wudu, since it is immediately followed by salah.

What about khutbah?

Majorioty of scholars including Malik and Abu Hanifa do not require state of purity for khutbah. They talk about both major and minor impurities. We have no record of prophet giving khutbah and going and performing ghusl or wudu and then performing prayers. So is this evidence that it is obligatory be in state of wudu? Sheikh says that you can conclude from the prophet continuously doing something you can say that it is recommended to be in a state of wudu.

What about studying ilm deen, knowledge of deen?

The Salaf scholars discuss this. They describe the manners of the student of knowledge and they state that the student should be in a state of wudu. Also the student will be mentioning the name of Allah.

Performing wudu before going to sleep

Al Albani does not have comment on this section. Majority of the scholars are of the opinion that it is sunnah to sleep in a state of wudu. Maliki say that it is Mustahabb and some scholars say that it is wajib. Sheikh mentioned scholars who mention that it is mustahab to perform wudu before going to sleep. We should follow the wording of the dhikr exactly as mentioned in the hadith. Barra replaced rasool with nabi in the dhikr.

Hadith in this section are clear that it is not required for person in sexual defilement to make ghusl but it is recommended to wash private parts and make wudu before sleeping.

This is the wudu for going to sleep, it is different than the wudu for tahara. So the act of making wudu after sexual defilement, is an act of wudu before sleeping.

The act of making wudu before sleeping applies to sleeping during any time of the day.

Eating or drinking while in state of sexual impurity

Does this mean that you are not allowed to eat and drink in the state of sexual impurity? No. Since you can start fasting or remember Allah swt while in state of sexual impurity. Act of eating or drinking is not prohibited in state of sexual defilement.

The only time the person has to make ghusl is when the time of prayer is upon him. So he can delay making ghusl until the time of the prayer.

Al Albaani did not make any comments on these reports.

There is another hadith from Ayesha, that said that the prophet would sometimes make wudu and sometimes he would sleep without touching water at all.

It is recommended that he make wudu before eating or drinking and it is not obligatory to make wudu.

Performing wudu before ghusl for post sexual defilement

It is not obligatory part of ghusl and since we are going to discuss the obligatory parts of ghusl later on, we will discuss this later.

Performing wudu after eating food touched by fire

Majority of the scholars that it was originally obligatory and was later abrogated. Can we say that it is still mustahab to do the action?

We have evidence that the Prophet did not make wudu after eating sheep’s shoulder that was touched by fire.

The Hanabalis are of the opinion that you need to make wudu after eating camel meat.

2010-11-07 Class Notes

Actions in which it is mustahab (recommended) to make wudu. Continuing from page 42 of the book.

Performing wudu before prayers

Prophet showed us by his actions, that it is not obligatory to make wudu before every prayer. And he also stated that if it was not a hardship, he would have made it mandatory to make wudu before every prayer and to use miswak before every prayer.

Albaani’s Comments

He says that Tirmidhi commented on this hadith and said that the last hadith quoted is weak.

The english translation does not correctly convey the passive voice. It shoud say, it was narrated from Umar that.... As we know that the scholars used passive voice to indicate weakness of something. Albaani says that what Syed Sabbiq say is not sufficient to just use the passive voice. Most people don’t know the difference between active voice and passive voice, and it is no longer sufficient.

Before we continute with Albaani’s comments, let us discuss the topic of making wudu while in state of wudu.

Hanafis say it is mustahab to make wudu, even if long time has not passed between the two wudu. Some scholars don’t like it, because it leads to waswasa.

Another opinion among Malikis is that you must pray an obligatory prayer between two wudus. This is to preclude somebody making wudu after wudu while in state of wudu.

One view of shafiees is that you should do something between two wudus. This is to preclude making wudu after wudu.

Another opinion among shafiees is that there must be some time break between wudus, otherwise it is analogous to washing in wudu 4-5 times.

Some of the Hanafis have objected to the first opinion of the Hanafis, because it is tantamount to washing parts 4 times.

We know from the prophet that he made wudu for every prayer, even if he was in a state of tahaarah.

Returning to Al Albaani’s comments

It is recommended to make wudu after you break wudu. He quotes the hadith of Bilal, one morning prophet called for Bilal and asked him, how is it that you preceded me in Jannah, I heard your footsteps before me, Bilal said that I never made Adhan except I made two rakat of prayers and I never broke my wudu except I made wudu afterwords, and prophet said that this is the reason for it. Recorded by Tirmidhi and others. And he says that it is sahih. So Albaani added the act of making wudu after wudu is broken.

Albaani also added making wudu after vomitting. Hadith of the prophet, and Darda added that it was confirmed by a sahaba whom he met and he said that it was he who poured water for the prophet’s wudu.

Albaani added the condition of making wudu after carrying the dead body. Hadith is quoted that it is required to make ghusl for one who washed the body of the dead and it is recommended to make wudu after carrying the body. Albaani says that Syed Sabbiq quotes this hadith later in the book while discussing the washing of the body.

Other actions where it is recommended to make wudu

Did this cover all the actions for which it is mustahab to make wudu?

It is mustahab to make two rakat of prayer when you enter the masjid, so it is mustahab to make wudu if you enter the masjid and plan to sit down in the masjid.

It is not obligatory, we know this because people of the mosque, used to sleep in the mosque, and if you wake up and they did not have wudu. There is ijmaa among scholars that it is not obligatory to make wudu to enter the mosque.

Nawawi said that if you enter the mosque without wudu, you have to say subhanallah alhumdullilah la ilaha illalah. Nawawi is replacing the two rakat of the masjid with the above dhikr.

Standing at Arafat and going between Safah and Marwah are other actions that it is mustahab to make wudu. You will find this in books of fiqh but there is no evidence for it. There is no salah related to saiee.

Being in state of wudu to visit the grave of the prophet. And they claim that it is ijmaa among scholars to do so. Nowadays you have to enter the masjid to visit the grave, so the rules for entering the masjid apply. However there is no evidence that it is required to make wudu to visit the grave of the prophet.

To avoid difference of opinion, it is recommended to make wudu. For example in the case of touching the private parts.

You wanted to cool off, then it is mubaha to make wudu. For example it is very hot and you want to cool yourself, then it is mubaha to make wudu.

Not to speak while making wudu

Not to speak while making wudu from ettiquette of Maliki and some other schools.

Hanbali view, it is disliked to speak while making wudu.

Shafiees says it is sunnan not to speak without any reason.

Hadith reported by DaralQutni from ,,,, and it describes Uthman making wudu and somebody came to him and made salaams to him, Uthman did not reply to him until he finished making the wudu and then he apologized to him and he said that the only thing stopping me from speaking to you was the hadith of the prophet ...... whoever does not speak while making wudu and then says subhanallah ....  

This hadith is very weak.

Ahmad reports from some sahabi Muhajir ... , who said that he greeted prophet while he was making wudu and he did not respond until he finished making wudu and then he said that the only thing that stopped him from responding was that he was not in the state of wudu.

There is another hadith from the same sahaba, that there is another narration that the prophet was urinating while he greeted him.  According to the sheikh, the first hadith is a mistaken narration of the second correct hadith.

Person making wudu is supposed to make supplications while making wudu.

Another evidence is that there is ijmaa that it is disliked to speak while making wudu.

Ibn Taymiyyah says that the ulema disliked to speak while making wudu or ghusl.

Opinion that it is permissible to speak while making wudu

Evidence is the hadith of the prophet who replied to his wife while making ghusl. Some scholars say that if it is permissible to speak while making ghusl then it is more permissible to speak while making wudu.

2010-11-14 Class Notes

Individual is not able to make wudu except with assistance. According to scholars it is mandatory to accept the assistance and if he has to pay for it, then he must.

ibn Akeel a hambali scholar says it is not obligatory. For example if he cannot stand during the prayer, then he does not have to hire somebody to stand for him. And since wudu is a shurut or pre-condition for the prayers, then it is not required for him to hire to assist him to make wudu.

Principle of shariah is that if you do not have the means to do it, then you are not required to do it. Nawawi in his book, Majmua, says that there is ijmaa or there is no difference of opinion on this matter.

So this topic of hiring somebody to make wudu is very strange.

Another case is using somebody’s assistance to bring water for making wudu. In fact many times the sahaaba did this for the prophet many times.

What about somebody pouring the water for wudu?

Some of the Hanafis and Shafiees it is makroo’, it is from the ettiquette of the wudu that you should not require any assistance for making wudu. Hambali opinion it is not makroo’. Maliki opinion is that it is not makroo’ but it is not a desirable action.

Another opinion is that the person has ability to do wudu, but somebody else is doing the actions of the wudu, such as rubbing the water?

What is the difference if somebody just pours the water and we said earlier that we can just pour water where we are required to rub and then somebody actually rubbing the water.

Hanafi and Shafiee it is makroo’, Maliki it is forbidden.

A scholar says it is permissible without any qirah???  

There is no clear, explicit hadith that prohibits someone assisting some one to make wudu. However ibn Majar says that the prophet never relied on anyone else in making the wudu, however this is a weak narration. So these narrations are weak and none of them are explicit in restricting this action. We have reports of sahaaba bringing water for the wudu. As for pouring the water, we have Usama and others pouring the water for the wudu of the prophet, and the evidence is clear and is permissible. We dont have any evidence for .....

Using a towel to dry himself ...

Majority of the opinion is that there is no harm using towel to dry after wudu or ghusl. Maliki opinion is that it is disliked. ibn Abbas used towel after ghusl but not after wudu. Shafiee opinion is that it is mustahab. A second opinion is that is it makroo, third opinion is that it is disliked, a fourth opinion is that it is mubaha, and another opinion is that it is disliked in summer but not in winter.

There is ijmaa that using towel is not haraam. And if there is a need to use the towel, then to use it is not makroo’.

What is the evidence that it is makroo’?

There is a hadith related by Maymoonah, where she offered her a towel and he did not use it and wiped the water by using his hand. Can this be used as a evidence? According to ibn Hajr, this was a particular circumstance and there might be some evidence why he did not use the towel, but then he speculates for the reasons.

It is not mustahab to use the towel, but that does not make it makroo’.

Those who support the use of towel, the quote a weak hadith. Another narration in Tirmidhi, where Ayesha describes the use of towel by the prophet, but it is weak as reported by Tirmidhi himself. There is no authentic report of prophet using the towel or having a towel to wipe himself. We have one report of where prophet did not use a towel even after ghusl.

If you use a towel, it is considered to be mubaha.

There is no sanction for reciting .Surah Al Qadr after wudu. This is not an acceptable hadith. Just in case somebody might have heard it and applying it. There is no evidence for it.

If there are any other issues related to wudu that we did not cover, please send email to the sheikh.

We will now move to the topic of wiping over the socks.

What is socks? What is khuff?

Khuff is very thin leather. Sheikh showed two pictures of khuff, one with short cuffs and one with long cuffs which look like the crew socks and athletic socks. And in both cases the whole foot was covered over the ankle..

Q:  If wiping over socks is allowed, then is it also allowed to wipe over my feet (if I'm not wearing socks)? Or, do I need to wash my feet in this case.

There are two readings from Surah Al Maida verse 6 which describes the wudu.

يا أيها الذين آمنوا إذا قمتم إلى الصلاة فاغسلوا وجوهكم وأيديكم إلى المرافق وامسحوا برءوسكم وأرجلكم إلى الكعبين وإن كنتم جنبا فاطهروا وإن كنتم مرضى أو على سفر أو جاء أحد منكم من الغائط أو لامستم النساء فلم تجدوا ماء فتيمموا صعيدا طيبا فامسحوا بوجوهكم وأيديكم منه ما يريد الله ليجعل عليكم من حرج ولكن يريد ليطهركم وليتم نعمته عليكم لعلكم تشكرون

Muhsin Khan

O you who believe! When you intend to offer As-Salat (the prayer), wash your faces and your hands (forearms) up to the elbows, rub (by passing wet hands over) your heads, and (wash) your feet up to ankles. If you are in a state of Janaba (i.e. had a sexual discharge), purify yourself (bathe your whole body). But if you are ill or on a journey or any of you comes from answering the call of nature, or you have been in contact with women (i.e. sexual intercourse) and you find no water, then perform Tayammum with clean earth and rub therewith your faces and hands. Allah does not want to place you in difficulty, but He wants to purify you, and to complete His Favour on you that you may be thankful.

Im trying to get the picture of the socks in here.....

There are two different readings of أرجلكم ar jalakum or ar jalikum. Both of those readings are mutawatir.

This was an issue that divided the ummah. Khawarij and Shia wipe over the feet and reject wiping over the socks. In fact it became so divided, that if accepted wiping over the sock, you were identified as ahl al sunnah and if you rejected it, then you were not from the ahl al sunnah. Hanafis do not reject wiping, they have some conditions that need to be met for wiping over the socks.

There is difference of opinion, and that is why sheikh is surprised by the statement of Syed Sabiq.

Are khuffain socks? Sheikh is going to use the word socks or khuffain.


Majority is to wipe over the socks while travelling or while at home.

One opinion of Imam Malik and others

It is allowed while travelling and not otherwise.

This is the also from Imam Malik

It is not allowed at all.

Next time we will present the evidence for it.

2010-11-21 Class Notes

Two interesting questions that the sheikh received after last class related to wudu.

The sheikh requests information from those who are familiar with the two questions above based on regional/cultural practices.

We read the paragraph about wiping over the socks from the text book and Sheikh showed two pictures of khuffayn (leather socks).

The majority of the scholars allow wiping over hte socks while traveling or not.  Hanafis, Hanbalis, Malikis, Shafi’i.

Continuing the discussion on the subject of wiping over socks

One narration from Imam Malik says it is not allowed while one is a resident.

Another narration of Imam Malik says that it is not allowed at all.  This is the weakest narration of Imam Malik.

It became a matter of aqeedah because some people rejected it and at the same time was being denied despite it coming down through so many sources.  

The Khwaraj were mostly ignorant of the sunnah and as such rejected much of it.  The Shi’a developed the idea that they would only accept knowledge that came from within their group, meaning they rejected knowledge from anyone who was not Shi’a.

يا أيها الذين آمنوا إذا قمتم إلى الصلاة فاغسلوا وجوهكم وأيديكم إلى المرافق وامسحوا برءوسكم وأرجلكم إلى الكعبين وإن كنتم جنبا فاطهروا وإن كنتم مرضى أو على سفر أو جاء أحد منكم من الغائط أو لامستم النساء فلم تجدوا ماء فتيمموا صعيدا طيبا فامسحوا بوجوهكم وأيديكم منه ما يريد الله ليجعل عليكم من حرج ولكن يريد ليطهركم وليتم نعمته عليكم لعلكم تشكرون

Muhsin Khan

O you who believe! When you intend to offer As-Salat (the prayer), wash your faces and your hands (forearms) up to the elbows, rub (by passing wet hands over) your heads, and (wash) your feet up to ankles. If you are in a state of Janaba (i.e. had a sexual discharge), purify yourself (bathe your whole body).....

The Shi’a wipe over their feet (without socks) instead of washing them.  The shia dont have to worry about the different qiraat of the above surah. However we have the sunnah of the prophet and how he implemented the verse of the Quran, which is rejected by the shia.

We have no report that the Prophet saas ever wiped his feet (without socks).  With all the reports of the Sahabah regarding how the Prophet saas made wudhu, we have no report that he wiped over his bare feet, he in fact washed them.

Ibrahim Nafee said he was very pleased with the hadith of Jarir (where he urinated and then made wudhu by wiping over his leather socks) because Jarir became muslim after the revelation of surah al ma’idah.  The significance of this is that the verse regarding wudhu was put into practice and was not abbrogated.  This hadith is also in both Al Bukhari and Muslim.

Ibn al Mundar, an early scholar that composed works on fiqh and tafseer, after recording a number of hadith and statements of the sahabah, tabi’een and fuqaha regarding wiping over socks stated that all the people he researched and talked to regarding this subject stated that it was allowed to wipe over socks while traveling.

We have hadith where the Prophet saas instructs the sahabah to leave their socks on while traveling (there is a time duration here, not sure if it is 3 days).  There is a sahih narration recorded in Muslim where someone came to A’ishah and asked her about wiping over the leather socks.  She responded by saying that the person should ask Ibn Abi Taalib since he traveled often with the Prophet saas.  The implication of this is that this is only applicable while traveling.  Apparently this is also saying that she has no knowledge of this, further implying that this is something that was done while traveling.  A’ishah did not see everything that the Prophet saas did.  The rest of the hadith says that they went to Taalib and he said that there is a time limit for traveling and while not traveling.  The rest of the hadith clearly says that he set a time limit of one day for the non-traveler.  

There is a narration in Sunan al Bahaqi in which there was a debate during the time of Umar Khataab about wiping over the leather socks.  Ibn Abbas, talking to Syed, said that you should have said that wiping over the socks is only for long distance traveling and when it is very cold.  The chain for this statement is authentic, however we have differing narrations from Ibn Abbas where he allowed it under all circumstances.  

One of the leading Maliki scholars, ibn al Mundar??, said that some of the maliki scholars that wiping over the socks is only for traveling as it is a special exemption due to the difficulties of traveling in analogy to breaking one’s fast while traveling and shortening the prayers while traveling.  Ibn Abdul Bar said that there is nothing to this argument since qiyyas or ijtihad cannot be used in the presence of authentic reports.

There are those who also said that it is not allowed to wipe over the socks.  This is the weakest narration from Imam Malik.  A’ishah is the only sahabi we know that rejected the concept of wiping over the socks.  A’ishah said, “For me to tear apart the leather socks with knives is better than wiping over them.”  This report appears to be authentic.  From the earlier report where A’ishah told the group to go ask the sahabi, it seems like she has no knowledge of wiping over the socks.

ibn Abbas said, “By Allah, he (the Prophet saas) never wiped over them after Ma’idah.”  The chain back to Ibn Abbas for this narration is weak.

Form Sahih Muslim, “the Prophet saas prayed upon conquering Makkah and wiped his socks.”  Umar said that he has done something that he has not done before and the Prophet saas replied by saying that he did that intentionally.

There are some narrations that described Ibn Abbas wiping over his socks.  It seems like earlier he was against it but later began following this practice, probably around the 4th or 5th year after the Hijra.

These reports used to support the opinion that wiping over the socks is not allowed have some kind of weakness in them.  Ibn Taymiyyah said about these reports; the basis of wiping over the socks was unknown to many of the early and later scholars to the point where some sahabah and people of madinah and ahl bait (source of the shi’a) reject it, but we have been able to confirm through various sources that the Prophet saas did wipe over his socks and continued to do so after the revelation of Surah Ma’idah.  This practice was not known to all of the sahabah and scholars in the earliest generations.  This also explains why Imam Malik had differing narrations since not everyone knew about this practice at some point.  This is one of the issues why is also became an issue of aqeedah since it was well-known and wide-spread and those who rejected it tended to have differing aqeedah.  If the people who rejected some of the narrations, if they had analyzed the reports chronologically, they would have come to the opinion that the prophet did wipe over his socks.

One narration from Abu Hurairah said that he might as well wipe over his donkey instead of wiping over his socks.  There are other narrations that are stronger that describe Abu Hurairah accepting the practice.

So we have presented evidence that this practice of wiping over the socks was done by the prophet.

Wiping over slippers

Continuing from page 44 to page 45.

What are slippers?

Sheikh showed a photograph of the slippers, that looks like a soul with wrappings around the shin all the way to the knee (or slightly below). The bottom soul could be leather and the wrapping could be cotton or wool. Some translators describe these “slippers” as stockings of some kind.  The bottom portion covering the foot is leather and there is some wool type cloth covering the leg above the foot.  Sandals are very similar to this.  

What are sandals?

Sheikh showed a picture of sandals that have a soul and straps on the feet only, there are no strapping on the shin or leg. Sandals are made from leather???

Socks: Khuff

Slippers: jawrab it is a persian word and Arabs borrowed it


Socks: (foot coverings)

No picture.....

When reading from pages 44-45 we have to keep the above definitions in mind.

The mention of wiping over the sandals was only secondary, according to Sayyid Saqib.  We will come back to this.

Foot covering = socks (close to what we wear nowadays) on pg 45.

Syed Sabbiq says that they are claiming ijmaa but they cannot even find 10 scholars who have this opinion, of wiping over slippers. Ibn Taymiyaah is opening the door of the magnanimity of the shareeah and states that anything that you wear on your feet, you can wipe over?

What kind of footwear can you wipe over? This is the question that we have to answer.

Al Albaani’s comments

Syed Sabbiq quotes Mughira’s hadith and Abu Dawud graded it weak.  Al-Albani says that abu Dawud said in his sunan after recording this hadith that Abdurahman Ibn Mahdi, a famuos scholar right before Bukhari, did not used to narrate this hadith because the well-known narration from Mughira was that the prophet saas wiped over his khuffayn.  Mahdi does not accept the report that the Prophet saas wiped over his jawrab.  Al Albani then says that you see Abu Dawud did not declare this weak because of any defect in the chain of the hadith, he only said that because it contradicts what is a well-known narration from the prophet saas that he wiped over his socks.  Al Albani then says that it is clear to anyone that is rational that this is not a defect that harms the soundness of hte hadith because him affirming that the Prophet saas wiped over his leather socks does not negate the narration that the Prophet saas also walked over his stockings and sandals.  If a trustworthy person narrated this from mughira then we must also accept this.  If Mughira narrated this then there is no contradiction regarding the Prophet saas doing one things and another.  So Al Albani is accepting the positions of Abu Dawud and Mughira.  The chain meets the criteria of Bukhari and then quotes a scholar that comments on that. He also commented that we should not be confused by those scholars who call this narration weak.  This defect is not damaging.  This is very interesting since basically this is the divide between the earlier scholars and later scholars.  

Al Albani also comments on the one sentence that is missing from the translation (wiping over the stockings was the purpose of the report and wiping over sandals was secondary).  Someone could understand from this that it is not permissible to wipe over the sandals.  In order to make sure no one has that incorrect understanding, Al Albani said that it has been confirmed in authentic independent narrations that the PRophet saas wiped over his sandals without stocks.  Reported by Ibn Omar and others.  THese hadith indicate that it is permitted to wipe over the sandals as well.  This was affirmed from some of the salaf and also said that this is clear evidence that this footwear does not have to completely cover the foot.  

With respect to wiping over the slippers/stockings, jawrab, one opinion says that it is allowed to wipe over jawrab that is made of thick material, like wool.  This is the opinion of Ibn Yusuf and Mohammad from among the hanafis and this is the opinion that Abu Hanifa finally resorted to before his death (the sheikh is not sure if this story is accurate).  This is the strongest of two opinions on the Maliki madhab and is also the position of the Hanbali madhab.  

Another opinion is that it is allowed to wipe over the stockings if they are made of leather or if this bottom part is made of open leather (like leather straps).  This was one of the reports from Abu Hanifa and is also one of the opinions in the Shafi’ madhab.  The Malikis say that you can wipe over the stockings if the bottom portion is made of leather.  

There is a narration from Imam Malik that you cannot wipe over the jawrab at all.

There is another opinion that you can wipe over the jawrab even if it is uncovering a part of the feet and even if the bottom portion is wool.  Nawawi said that this is the opoinion of Umar, Ali, Ishak and Ibn Dawud ad Dhahiri.  

With respect to the texts related to it, we have the hadith of Mughira (the hadith that Al Albani accepts) and many of the early scholars considered it defective.  

In Sunan al Bahaqi, there is a long discussion quoting scholars that said this hadith was not acceptable.  Muslim, An Nisa’i, and others.  These are some of the best scholars when it comes to defects in hadith.

An Nawawi says that the opinions of these scholars take precedence in cases even when At Tirmidhi says a hadith is hasan sahih.  

There are some scholars of hadith that accept this hadith.  Ibn Haban and Ibn Khuzayma recorded this hadith in there Sahih collections.  

2010-11-28 Class Notes

We are in the middle of discussion that it is permissible to wipe over jawrab. The source of the dispute is that khuff is made out of leather and jawrab’s soul is made of leather and other parts are of wool or some other material. There are some scholars who reject wiping over anything other than leather socks.

There is a hadith of Mughira that the prophet wiped over two jawrab and two naal. One poor interpretation of the hadith is that the prophet wore jawrab over the naal. This hadith is weak.

At Tabarani reports from Bilal, that prophet wiped over his two khuff and over his stockings. However the chain for this hadith is also weak.

Imam Ahmed reported from Thawban, during an expedition, people came to the prophet and complained about the cold weather, the prophet asked them to wipe over their foot covering (this Arabic  term includes jawrab and ..) Narrators of this hadith are trustworthy. Some say there is break in the chain, Al Bukhari says there is no break in the chain.

Some say wiping can only be done during cold weather.

There is a principle in the shareeah. If something is said in general terms, then you should leave it in general term and do not restrict it further.

Ibn Masud and other sahaba report wiping over their jawrab.

Somebody said that there is ijmaa among the sahaba about wiping over their jawrab. What do you think about that? what he means by ijmaa is that he does not know of any reports that contradict this opinion.

So these narrations that describe about wiping over jawrab, they do not define the kind of jawrab and are not restricted. So if we’re going to restrict them, then proof must be given.  

Ibn Tahmiyyah was of the opinion, that there is no difference in wiping over khuffs or jawrab. He said it is permissible to wipe over jawrab regardless of whether it has leather or not and this is the strongest of the two opinions and in the books of hadeeth it’s recorded the Prophet wiped over his jawrab and na’aal and he said, even if this hadeeth is not authentic, then analogy is valid. There’s no difference between wool and leather and this is not considered a significant difference in shariah. In the same way there’s no difference when a person wears ihraam he wears white or black.

Wisdom behind is the same. Anas bin Malik said, al-jawrab is a kind of khuff. He says, what khuff really means all those things that you wear over your feet. So if you can confirm without any doubt you can wipe over the khuffain then you can do it over al-jawrab.  Later linguists tried to differentiate between khuff and jawrab but he says there is no difference.

{Note: The prophet did not wear any other shoe on top of the khuff or jawrab}

Socks are closer to jawrab, shoes are closer to khuff in today’s terminology.

Opinion: Wiping over jawrab is not permissible

There are those who do not wiping over jawrab. Their evidence is that the basic opinion or asl is wash your feet, this is what the verse of the Quran says. They state the the hadith says it is permissible to wipe over khuff but not over jawrab.

They contend that you need a definitive hadith to overide the dhahir meaning of the Qur’an. They state that the hadith of wiping over jawrab is weak.

We can respond that we have reports of sahaba wiping over jawrab. Are we going to say that the sahaba are going to ignore the dhahir meaning of the Qur’an? No.

They also present the argument that if you look at the word al jawrab, it could be leather soul plus wool stockings or both leather or both wool. They say that it is safe to assume that when they wiped over the jawrab when it was leather. Response, later scholars state that jawrab meant both leather and wool. And since it is general we cannot restrict it to mean leather or wool.

Another argument the present is that if jawrab is not made of leather, then you cannot walk a long distance and hence you are not allowed to wipe over it.

Response is that there is no evidence for how much can walk over jawrab.

They say that there are some special cases in shareeah that go against analogy. Wiping over the khuff is a special case and you should not make analogies because it goes against making analogies. The response to this argument is that we have authentic reports from the Sahaba wiping over their jawrab.

There is no doubt that wiping over jawrab is permissible.

Opinion: Is it permissible to wipe over the sandals?

In a sandal there is part of the feet exposed. Is it permissible to wipe over them?

According to the majority of ulema, including malikis, hanafis, hambalis, shafiees, it is not permissible to wipe over the sandals.

Some scholars say it is permissible to wipe over sandals, according to ibn Taymiyaah it is only those sandals that are difficult to remove. His explanation would be of hardship.

Most sandals slip right off, then you can remove them and wash your feet.

Evidence for those who say it is permissible is the hadith of the prophet that we discussed earlier wherein the prophet wiped over his two jawrab and his two na’aal. Al Albaani accepts this hadith.

Another evidence in musnad Ahmed, in which Abu Aws wiped over his sandals and his son asked him and he said that I saw the prophet do it. This hadith is weak.

Narration from Abu Musa al Masri, he saw the prophet wipe over the jawrab and na’aal. There is weakness in the chain of this report. That chain also has weakness although it’s not very weak.

al-bazzar reports from ibn umar that he would make wudu and wipe over the sandals and said that’s how I saw the Prophet (saw) doing and the chain of that seems to be sahih.

Tabari reports from ….. that the prophet wiped over his na’aal. Again this report is weak.

Ibn abi Shaiba report that Ali urinated and then he made wudu and wiped over his sandals. Mueddhin made the iqama, Ali removed his sandals and  went for prayer. We’ll discuss this hadeeth later.

Narration from ibn abbas that prophet wiped over his sandals but that’s a weak narration.

Why did Ibn Taymiyaah restrict it?

He said that since it is easy to remove the sandals, then you should go ahead and remove them.  However sheikh mentioned that if the shareeah does not restrict it, we should not try to restrict it. He gave an example of casual Friday and you are wearing sandals and making wudu at work and it might not be convenient to do so.

There is a kind of wudu that you make when you are still in the state of wudu which we did not discuss earlier. The requirements of that wudu is different than the requirements of regular wudu.

Imam Ahmed reported that Ali prayed dhuhr and stayed behind to answer some questions. And when the time of Asr came, he took handful of water and wiped his face, arms, head and feet. And then he drank the rest of the water. People did not like it. And he said, that I saw the prophet perform this wudu when he already had wudu. The chain for this report is sahih. This hadith does not mention anything about wiping over sandals.

This above hadith is used as evidence that wiping over sandals can only be done for the special wudu when you already have wudu. But this evidence is not correct since it does not talk about wiping over the sandals.

It looks like it is permissible even to wipe over sandals when you take all of the evidences.

In the text from Syed Sabbiq, there are some indications that it is not permissible to wipe over the sandals. This is the analysis of Al Albaani.

Syed Sabbiq says that it is okay to wipe over socks that have holes in them, if these are the only kind of socks that you have. So he is implying that it is not permissible to wipe over socks or sandals since they have openings in them.

Later on we will talk about the conditions.