Fiqh us Sunnah Winter 2011
Fiqh us Sunnah X
Required Textbooks: Al-Sayyed Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah (available most places where Islamic books are sold)
Grading: Final Exam 100% (One final, March 6, one week before last week of class)
When: Sundays 6:45-8:00 (March 13 7:30-8:35) January 9, 2011 to March 13, 2011
Basic Outline of the Class
Wiping over the “Socks”
2011-01-09 Class Notes
We concluded that we can wipe over khuffain. Then we found some other reports that discuss jawrab which is sometimes made out of wool and where the bottom layer is sometimes leather, and it is permissible to wipe over jawrab. And then we discussed na3al which is akin to straps, and we have concluded that it is permissible to wipe over it also.
Syed Sabiq pages 44-45 discusses many things, and we read it last time. Reading from page 44 in the classroom.
The most important points is the permissibility of the various kinds of footwear. Some scholars might have a different point of view, but majority of the scholars said it is permissible to wipe over the various kind of footwear.
The word that Ibn Tayimyiiah is using is lafaayif which can be bandage and cloth kind of material. He was making references to something which is wrap around which is more difficult to remove than footwear and hence the permissibility to wipe over it.
Other question related to this which was not discussed by Syed Sabiq which is preliminary before moving to conditions and the question is:
Which is preferred, wiping over the socks or washing the feet when you have choice to wipe and wash?
Different opinions about preferences of washing feet or wiping over socks
1. One opinion is that washing is preferred, this is the Hanafi, Maliki and Shafiee opinion and one opinion from Imam Ahmed. Among the Malikis one of their standard text Sagheer as Sawi says that wiping is khilaaf al oola which implies that It goes against what is best. Some say its not the best thing to do.
2. Another view is that wiping is better than washing. This is one of the unique opinions in the Hanbali madhab. Each madhab has some unique opinions.
3. Another report from Imam Ahmed says both are equal.
4. Then there is the opinion of Ibn Al Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyyah. They say that which one is afdhal (preferred) depends on the person’s situation. If someone is wearing socks then he can wipe over it. You don’t go out of your way to put your socks on and wipe on them and you dont go out of your way to take them off to wash them. This is not the example of the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم).
Evidences for different opinions
Each group above has some evidence for what they are saying.
Note: Those who say its best to wash or among those who say its best to wash they put a condition that its better to wash the feet as long as you don’t turn away from wiping over the socks or refuse the idea of wiping over the socks. They are saying this because there are ahlulbidah who reject the idea of wiping. So they are saying do not reject the sunnah.
Evidences for Opinion #1 - Washing is preferred
In fact one of the signs that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم washed the feet more often. When Ayesha who was the wife of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was asked aout wiping aver the khuff she was not aware of this and thsi shows that this was not which Prophet used to do it very often, If it was very often then she would have been aware of it..
They also say that Washing is the thing that is required in the Quran. In Surah Maeda verse 6 Allah swt says:
Most common reading is wa arjulakum makes the verb related to it to wash the feet. They say the general rule is washing but the exception to that is wiping.
Evidence 2: They also present a hadith in which Ayesha (radhiAllah u anha) when she got her menses and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم told her to go back and said the umrah is according to the effort you put in [Saheeh Al-Bukhari].
Washing takes more effort. There could be more reward for you in that. It is also reported from some sahaba that washing is superior then wiping. There is a report from Umar and Abu Ayyub al Ansari. Abu Ayyub said he liked to wash them. It may not be a shariah view. That is some of the evidence for those who say washing is preferred. .
Evidences for Opinion #2 - Wiping is preferred
Those who say wiping is preferred. They say that this is a rukhsa from Allah swt. Hadith: Allah loves that people use his exemptions in the same way he dislikes people to disobey Him. [Musnad Ahmed]
Another evidence is that wiping is easy so that is more prefered. If the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was given two choices he would choose the easier one. So which is easier the washing or wiping.
There is also a hadith in Sunan An Nisai one of the companions said that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ordered us to wipe over the socks when we were travelling. So that’s an order.
They also argue there are some groups of ahlul bidah who do not wipe over the socks. Thus we do it to differ from them. In fact Sufyan At Thauri was telling one of his students, that you will not benefit from anything you recorded until you wipe over the socks. But suppose during the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم this was not the case. This is only for the case where ahlulbidah are present. You might want to oppose them intentionally.
Evidences for Opinion #3 - Either is fine
The third group makes an analogy. The one who breaks the oath can feed the poor or fast. Anyone who does either is fine. Imam Ahmed has issue with this analogy
Evidences for Opinion #4 - Depends on person’s situation
Ibn ul Qayyim said the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not burden himself. He would wipe over his socks if he had them on and wash them if he did not. He would not go over and beyond out of his way to remove the socks or put them on for wiping.
The Shaykh agrees with the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah. You don’t need to go out of your way to something.
Is wiping over considered a rukhsah or an azeemah? What’s a rukhsah and what’s an azeemah?
Azeemah is the default case of the ruling and rukhsah is an exemption to the ruling. Is there any significance to asking this question?
Is there any significance of asking this question that identifying wiping over the socks is rukhsa or azeemah. What would be the ramification of that? One of the diff between rukhsah and azeemah is that rukhsa is a concession from the lawgiver to follow an easy way.
Lets say you are travelling you are allowed to break your fast. This is a special concession from the law. However suppose you are travelling for a haram purpose, you are going to Las Vegas for gambling, then can you exercise rukhsa.
One of the differences between rukhsa and azeemah according to some madhabs is that if the intention behind your action is haram then you cant use the concession. If you are travelling during ramadhan for haram purpose then you are not allowed to break your fast. if you say that wiping over the socks is rukhsa not azeemah and you are travelling for haram purpose then you cannot take this concession. There isn't a consensus on this but some madhab agree on this.
Sheikh agrees that both are Azeemah not at the same time but depending on the situtation i.e if you are wearing the socks then it is Azzemah to wipe and if not then washing is Azeemah.
Another question that comes up often is: Wiping over the socks does it remove the state of impurity. Or does it make us permissible to just pray?
For some madhab you cannot touch the Quran while in the state of impurity. Now wiping over the socks remove the spiritual impurity and allow you to touch the Quran or does it just make you permissible you to pray? This is the difference between rafi7 (removes the impuity) and mubee7 (just permits to just pray).
Answer: Personally, the shaykh says that there is nothing in the Quran and Sunnah that points to this. When you fulfil these conditions you are following the Quran and Sunnah. We will discuss that when we talk about tayyamum.
Since we concluded wiping is same as washing all other questions become clear. If it is rukhsa or azeemah. But if you answer this differently then you have different rulings. in other things like tayyamum it can be a big issue. Here it is not a big issue.
Wearing socks with intention of wiping over later
Another question that comes up and its very relevant: Does it make a difference if someone puts in the socks with the sole intention to wiping over them? Is this permissible where your intention is to wipe over it.
Answer: Actually, Abu Hanifah was one time asked what about someone who is in a state purity and he needs to relieve himself. But before he goes to relive himself he puts on his socks so that afterwards he just can wipe. Abu Hanifah said only a faqih would do something like that. Hanafis.
Different opinions of wearing socks with intention of wiping over later
1. Opinion of Abu Hanifah that only a faqih would so something like that. See above paragraph.
2. One opinion among the Malikis ibn hazam say its perfectly acceptable for someone to act in this way.
3. A second opinion says its not acceptable if someone puts it on with that intention. This is the standard Mailiki opinion. Imam Malik was asked about someone who sleeps and puts on socks with the intention that when he wakes up so that he just has to wipe. Imam Malik said he has no khair in him. Some of the malikies, one of the common things, if women have henna on their feet, to protect their henna and get the design messed up. Malikis say this is absolutely unacceptable. Maliki Scholar of Maliki Fiqh As-sawy said if you are putting on your socks out of fear of cold, a scorpion bite or something then its ok but if someone is doing it to avoid washing his feet then its not acceptable or for some luxury to protect henna application. This is the standard opinion in the Maliki madhab.
4. Another opinion is that it is disliked to do this in the maliki madhab.
5. Another opinion in Hanbalis is that it is not preferred to do this. It is a little bit less then disliked.
Evidences for different opinions of wearing socks with intention of wiping over later
Those who say its permissible part of their evidence is wiping over the socks is presented is mutlaq unrestricted. You are free to wipe over them. there is no restriction placed on them in the Quran or Sunnah or Ijmah.
They also argue that part of the reason you put on socks and why you are allowed to wipe over them is basically to protect your feet and to protect yourself to make thing easier to you. so it makes perfect sense to have this intention and wear the socks.
What do you think is the evidence for not making it allowed?
They make an analogy with the one who makes travel just to break his fast. what about this analogy?
Can this analogy be made. The analogy is not the same. What is the basic ruling breaking the fast is that it is haram. And the default ruling for wiping over the socks is that it is halal. So how can you make the analogy between those two cases, one is trying to do something haraam and the other is a halal act.
Then the second point that someone who takes steps to intentionally so that he can take this ruqsah then he cannot do that. But we concluded this it is not the Ruqsah but it is Azeemah. This also is not a strong answer.
What about the argument that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not put on his socks in order to wipe over his socks?
At most we can say its not mustahab but that does not mean it is impermissible. So the conclusion is for those who work that it is permissible to put your socks on.
Conditions for wiping over socks
Another question that comes up: those who are mustahada or bladder problem can they wipe over the socks. One of the conditions is that you have to be in a state of tahara. The point is that when they make wudhu they are in a state of tahara for tha tprayer time. They are considered a state of purity. They can just wipe over the socks when they make wudhu next time.
Two conditions not mentioned by Syed Sabiq
Two conditions that Syed Sabiq did not mention in the textbook, If you wipe over the socks:
1. Do they have to be something pure by itself? Do they have to pure?
2. And do they have to be free from impurities before you wipe over them?
For example: You are Shafiee, Hanafee, Hanbali and you bought khuff and they made of pig skin, does it have to be pure in itself ? Does it have to be free of najasah? these are two conditions that Sayyed Sabiq does not mention. If you make wudhu and you wear a shirt and after this the shirt has an impurity then can you go pray in it. The fact that you wipe over them you have to remove that impurity before you go make wudhu. So the main issue is that you can either remove the impurity or the item itself is impure???
Points to think about for the next class.
2011-01-23 Class Notes
Some of the issues that Sayyid Sabiq does not get into whether the sock has to be something pure, whether or not there is some impurity on the sock. Is it permissible to wipe over them?
You can make wudhu if your shirt has impurity or not, the wudhu is valid. It should not effect the validity of the wudhu. However you have to remove the impurity before you can pray.
The other question that is not answered by Sayyed Sabiq is does the sock has to be something pure or not. If the skin is tanned, dried and worked on there is some difference of opinion become pure after the tanning process. Some say everything can be made pure even pigskin. Other say no pigs and dogs do not become pure and only skins of animals that are halal to eat can become pure.
Right now, suppose you are of the opinion that pigskin is impure. Now your shoes happen to be from pigskin. Is it permissible to wipe over the shoes that are impure intrinsically? Is it permissible to wipe over something that itself is impure?
Removing shoes that are made of impure material before prayer, we discuss it later. Even if you wipe over and remove them has to be acceptable.
Statement by a number of scholars particularly from the Shafiee and the Hanbali scholars. Also from a Maliki scholar. Different scholars in different schools claim ijma3 not to wipe over something that by itself is something impure. Since they claim ijma3 they don’t need to give evidence. The only thing that the shaykh saw was that they gave an example, suppose there was an impurity on your foot when you wash your foot, that impurity has to be removed. The extremities that you wash if there is some impurity has to be removed. The argument is the only one used as an analogy and they apply the same principle.
Continue reading from the textbook …. Conditions for wiping over the socks.
We have to be in a state of purity before we wear the socks. Sayyid Sabiq brings a couple of other conditions. The sock must cover the foot to ankle and must be able to walk a distance in them.
Question from the Shaykh: We talked about the wiping over the sock while impure. what about wiping over the sock when that sock is something haram? For example it could be one of two common cases
the sock was stolen? Or in the case of men since they are not allowed to wear silk, what about the case of a man wiping over silk socks?
This highlights a couple of ideas. One of the principles is that wiping over the socks is an exemption kind of ease. If you are doing something haram is it permissible for you to take advantage of some of the exemptions or ease of the shariah?
We discussed it earlier in case of fasting and you cannot break fast if you are travelling for haraam reasons, for example going gambling to Las Vegas. We didn’t bring up a verse which is the evidence for this decision, the scholars differ on this opinion.
Surah Baqarah v 173 states
إنما حرم عليكم الميتة والدم ولحم الخنزير وما أهل به لغير الله فمن اضطر غير باغ ولا عاد فلا إثم عليه إن الله غفور رحيم
He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Surah Al Baqarah V 173.
What does bagh mean? Not going beyond the proper limits. what is meant by 3aad and bagh? Transgressing the limits means doing something haram. You cannot resort to it. This is a misinterpretation of this verse. ghaira bagh means he needs a few ounces to eat but eats more. aadin means he goes beyond the limits but he has a substitute available to him. The verse does not mean that if someone is going beyond, then he cannot use the law of exemption.
With respect to the act of wudhu and salat if the haram aspect is not directly related to the act itself they do not destroy the validity of the act. we are not saying its necessarily the best thing. So it does not effect the validity of the wudhu.
[Shaykh was invited to talk about riba. And as soon the shaykh finished one of the organizers stood up and said please contribute to the mortgage on the masjid, can you pray in a masjid that has haram related to it?]
Q: Can you pray with clothes that are stolen?
A: Wearing stolen clothes is directly related and you cannot pray in them. Suppose you have some illegitimate money in your bank account and you have a debit card on you while you pray. And if you take the idea to an extreme, then you cannot pray. If the act is unrelated, then you can pray and maybe this prayer can help you out of your sins. We have this mercy from Allah swt, if we did not then we would be in trouble.
If you wipe over the socks you are in a state of wudhu that is a condition. There is no difference of opinion on it. That is the clear.
The only thing which has a difference of opinion in is the following, do you have to be in a complete state of tahara? Suppose you wash your right foot and you put a sock on it and you wash your left foot then you put your sock on it. Do you have to be in a complete state of wudhu when you put your socks on or not? So the scholars have differed on this issue. This is the only point we found where they disagree.
According to the Hanafis. you wash the right foot you put sock on you wash the left foot and you put the sock on it.
The hanafis and the dhahiris and in one report from Imam Ahmed, ibn taymiyah and ibn qayyim ibn daqeeq al eid said you have done fine you can wipe over it later. Majority of the scholars of the Shafiees, Malikis and Hanbalis say you cannot wear one sock after you wash your foot, you have to wait until you finish the wudhu. Because in the hadith of mugheera, it says i entered and they were pure. They argue that only happens when you are finished with the act of taharah.
[See the idea doesn’t fly very well. Hajj story. He made umrah first and then hajj so he shaved half his head after the umrah.]
Linguistically that is either kind of a stretch or it is kind of taking something literally which is not true. both of them are not at the same time of the statement. because when you think about it, isn’t they key you entered in to your sock while in state of purity. Until you finish the wudhu, you are not in a state of tahara. When you put the sock on you are putting before you are in a state of purity. So that is their argument. So you have entered into that sock before you have been in a state of purity. After you have completed the wudhu now you are in a state of purity then you put the socks on afterwards you are in a state of purity. The idea of the others is that you are in a state of purity while the socks are on. that can be only be done when you entered a state of purity.
In the case of the hanafis, ibn hazm and ibn taymiyyah once you wash the foot that foot is pure. They disect the act of wudhu, for them tarteeb is not that important. One it becomes pure. so you can cover it. Actually, shaykh did not see any strong evidence in ibn Taymiyyah’s or Hanafis arguments.
The safest one is to finish the wudhu first. It is definitely closer to what the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وسلم) did it. he did not say I put them on while I was in a state of purity. The shaykh prefers the safer approach.
How many of us wipe over shoes. The first time you were not wearing shoes, you put those shoes on, you washed your feet and you put the show back on. That is exactly this kind of thing we are talking about. Strongest and safest is to wash and then put both socks on and then wipe.
Other conditions are probably the most important ones and cause more confusion. The socks must cover the foot to the ankle. What about that condition? is that a correct condition?
If someone is tired and makes wudhu in a sitting position. So he maybe lazy to wash the heel. So if its not ankle then what?
What if there are holes in the socks?
We have two issues. It has to be up to the ankles and cannot have holes in them.
Did the socks of sahaba did not have holes in them? The picture of khuff that shaykh showed earlier did not cover the ankles. And the point about Sahaba’s socks and holes implies that some of the sahaba were very poor and it is possible that their socks might have holes in them.
Difference of opinions over wiping over socks with holes in them
Beyond the question of socks covering the ankle, the question of socks covering over ankle is a non issue. The difference of opinion comes over the issue of wiping over socks with holes in them.
Opinion of ibn Taymiyyah, ibn ishaq, ibn mubarak, and sufyan ibn uyyainah.You are allowed to wipe over the socks even if there are holes in them
Second opinion is that if there is any hole that uncovers part of the foot then you may not wipe over it. This is the opinion of new or later madhab of Imam Shafiee while he was in Egypt.
A third opinion is based on the size of the holes. For the Hanafis it is a hole the size of three finger widths. even a combination of holes of this size is considered okay.
Why do you think ulama gave this type of opinion? Because people keep asking questions about the particulars and go in depth. Unfortunately these opinions are recorded and kept till posterity.
Fingers and hands used to be standard units for measurements, and they add a prefix the three finger widths of a regular human being.
What do the Malikis consider to be an acceptable size of hole in a sock?
If ⅓ of the sock is a hole, then it is okay. Anything over that size is unacceptable.
Where did they get this opinion? And this question will be important for those in the Fiqh of Finance class.
The shaykh has tried hard to find where they got this from. But even among the Malikis they preface it with this seems this is the proof but they can never say definitively. They base their opinion on the hadith of saad bin abi waqqas giving one third of his wealth on his death bed. Many things from the malikis that take and say ⅓ about in their fiqh.
Q: Why did Imam Shafiee have two madhabs?
A: Imam Shafiee was from Mecca and he studied with Imam Malik, then he moved to Baghdad. where he debated with Shaybani who has a Hanafi scholar and wrote his book on usool which is the risala.
When he moved to Egypt he did change some of his usool. He rewrote portions of the risalah. When he went to egypt he increased the knowledge by meeting other scholars. His madhab in Iraq was known as madhab al qadeem and the one in Egypt is known madhab al jadeed. He did not change his opinion on every topic, but he did change his opinion on some issues.
Evidences for different opinions about wiping over socks with holes in them
Those who say it is permissible, to wipe over the socks that have holes in them, ibn Taymiyah said that wiping over it does not imply wiping over the entire area. You don’t have to wipe over the entire head. You are not wiping over the entire area. if if was a complete replacement then you should wash over the top and the sides. Some of the idea, is the idea that you are wiping over something that needs to be washed. That is sufficient.
And then ibn taymiyah makes the point that among the sahaba obviously, it is impossible to imagine that all of their khuff did not have holes in them. If it was the case that it has to be free of holes then the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would have conveyed that to them.
Thirdly, they also argue that this condition, is not mentioned in the Book of Allah, sunnah, actions of the sahaba or in their opinions.
Additionally, when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم wiped over the socks, his proclamation was a general one he did not mention the quality of the khuffain. As long as it qualifies then whatever meets the definition of it then there is no problem. If general permission was given then that means they meet the conditions of the khuff.
Wiping over the socks maybe a kind of rukhsa. We will stop here and continue later. Burden of proof is upon those who say that holes have to be of specific size is a condition for wiping over socks.
It is hard to believe that the sahaba did not have holes in their khuffain, we have them today, so it is natural that they might have it too.
Shaykh Jamaal showed the picture of a naal which was a loose leather or woolen straps with many openings on the feet.
2011-01-30 Class Notes
We started with some questions from the students about footwear.
flip flops are like the borderline between what would be acceptable or not. So to err on the side of the caution the shaykh said flip flops are best not to be wiped over. The na3al are
Continuing with the topic of holes in the socks
Most of the arguments related to this issue is related to whether the whole foot has to be covered or not. Others respond by saying that this condition that there can be no holes it is not mentioned in the book of Allah and sunnah of the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.
Majority of the sahaba were poor so we expect that they would have holes in their socks and so forth. And one of the arguments they use. They talk about the differences between the Malikis and Shafiees on how big the hole can be?
One of the madhab says that the hole cannot be larger than the span of three toes and the other says one third this is kind of a wild swing and nothing authentically reported about it.
And they go back to the point one of the benefits is removing the hardship of removing the sock and if the sock has a hole then its hard to remove that hole also removing the socks with hole is also hard same as the socks without hole.
Those who say that the question of holes is not a big issue, as long as is it is still considered a proper khuff or a proper jaurab.
Some fuqaha also say that the socks or the sandals or the leather socks have to be able to stay up on their own. What is the logic behind that?
How would they say that they had the footwear on, if it falls down or does not stay up every time and thus becomes same as the issue of flip flops. This is one of the Shafiee view, Hanafi view and Maliki view.
Hanafi and hanbali opinion is that if only way to hold ititight is by tying it then it is not allowed to wipe over it.
One narration from Imam Ahmed that says you can wipe over the jawrabain if they are not tied on by themself. Some Malikis and some Shafiees and Ibn taymiyaah said this is not the condition.
If it is loose or comes down, then it is a problem. If it stays on your foot even if it loose, then it is not a problem.
Another common condition which you find in the books is that you have to be able to walk some distance in it. This is opinion of hanafis, malikis, shafiees and hanbalis
Some shafiees say that it is not a condition. Syed sabbiq is convinced by Ibn taymiyaah that it is not a condition.
Pre-condition: You should be able to walk in the footwear
Then the next condition is how much you have to be able to walk. Some say it has to be close to a mile.
Hanafi say that you must walk one farsakh which is approximately one mile. Maliki oipinion is that you have to be able to walk it normally. Some Shafiees say that walk as much as a musafir can walk in it
Why is it necessary that you should be able to walk in the footwear? Because it has to be footwear for a purpose and not for the sake of vanity.
Does the Khuff have to be out of leather?
Khuff were most likely leather during the time of the prophet, what if the definition of the khuff changed over the time ? Since we have diferent text which shows wiping over other than khuff thus this is not a issue. If there was no other text then this should have been the issue to consider.
Hanafis, shafiees, hanbalis: It is not a pre-condtion that socks have to be made out of leather
Maliki: It is a pre-condition. It is required that socks must be made out of leather.
This condition is not been supported by any textual evidence and also khuff linguistically doesnt mean that it has to be made from the leather. Also there are other evidences which shows you can wipe over anything other then leatehr,
Pre-condition: Footwear must prevent the water from reaching your feet
Hanafi and a view among shafiees: It is a condition that footwear should prevent water from reaching your feet. Majority of madhabs: It is not a pre-condition
Thus the burden of proof is on them who come with this condition. Remember the types of footwear that we described earlier had holes in it and it did not cover the entire foot.
Pre-condition: Cannot wipe over socks after purification from greater impurity
Some madhabs say that it is permissible to wipe over socks for purification from lesser act of impurity. If you are making ghusl from sexual defilement then you cannot wipe over socks. This is the agreed opinion among majority of the madhabs.
For example. Before you enter into janabah you have your socks on and then you enter into relation and then you need to remove your socks.
Evidence for this is in page 46..
Is it necessary that the stage of purity you are in when you are about to wipe over your socks is not from tayammum?
Earlier you made wudu from tayammum prayed Dhuhr and Asr and then later on you had to make wudu and now you have access to water, can you wipe over your socks now?
Core question about the state after tayammum
Is tayammum mubih or tahara? As we have text saying that don’t remove the socks as you are tahir,you can wipe over the socks only if you are in the state of Tahara. Does it allow you to make
accroding hanafis maklikis shafiees and hanbalis: you cannot wipe over your socks in that case. One narration from Imam Ahmed that says you can wipe over it.
POne of evidence they use is tha hadeeth recorded by Adbrur Razzaq Prophet (saw) said the clear soil / clean soil is the wudu for muslim even if he does not find water for 10 years, but then he finds water then he should wipe his skin with it and that is best for him” What they understand from that is that at that time if he needs to make ghusl and wudu he has to wash to every bodily parts after you make tayaamuum even for 10 years. Since it is says skin is singluar and they understand this as one set. This hadeeth is Hassan.
Many of the scholars say that tayaamum does not make the person in the state of tahir and makes him mubih so that he can pray. There is some doubt on this. As you are allowed you to read Quran.
Those who say you can they rely on saying that it is allowed rely on the hadeeth when prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said I wore it during the time when I was tahir.....as they believe that tayammum makes you tahir.
Since the both the evidence are not strong thus to be in safe side you wash your feet not wipe over it
Any other pre-conditions that we might have missed for wiping over socks
Q: What about transparent socks, why should they be a problem?
If you are concerned that water is reaching your feet, then we have seen that it is not a pre-condition. Would you be able to walk in them? It is not a pre-condition.
Continuing with the next paragraph from the text book. We are still on page 46. We are still discussing wiping over socks, next how much of the foot needs to be wiped.
How much of the foot needs to be wiped and which part of the foot needs to be wiped?
In hanafis school take 3 fingers and wipe over the top.
Maliki school youn eed to cover all of the top of the foot.
Shafiee, Suyfayan tawri, Ibn Hazm , Dawud Ad-Dhairi it is sufficient till it is enough to said it is wiped
hanbali school he must wipe over the majority of the foot.
Evidences for their opinions
Hasan al Basri made wudu and he would wipe over with his finger so that they could see the traces of the wiping , since he wiped over three times, that is how we got three fingers.
All we say in the text is the wiping over the top of the socks. Narration of Ali and Mughira show that wiping over implies wiping over the top.
Some say the word for wiping is unconditional. They say that anything that falls under the definition of wiping is sufficient, whether it be a large amount or a small amount.
Those that say it has to be over the majority of the socks and used evidence of the sahaba wiping over the socks shows that you could see the traces of the fingers and it was over the top of the socks.
To wipe over everything would be more difficult than washing over the whole foot. When you wash your feet you can immerse your entire foot or pour water over it. Since wiping over the socks is to remove hardship, if you wipe over half of it, is the same as wiping over the entirety.
What about wiping the bottom of the socks?
Hanbali and Hanafi opinion: Only the top of the foot.
Maliki opinion: If you just wipe the top is not sufficient, you have to wipe both the top and bottom.
Statement of Imam Malik: If you pray without wiping over the bottom, then you have to redo your prayers, however if the time of the prayer is over then it is okay.
Hanbali and Hanafi opinion: Statement of Ali. There is another narration from Ali recorded by Abu Dawood, which states that I continue to think that wiping over the bottom of the feet made more sense, until I saw the prophetصلى الله عليه وسلم wiping over the top.
Statement of Mughira which states I saw the prophet wiping only the top.
Report of Hasan al Basri which describes the traces of the finger print on the top.
Report of Waleed.... who is known to make tadlees... report of wiping both top and bottom. We cannot accept this hadith as evidence. This is recorded in Musnad Ahmed.
Another report from Abdul Razzaq from ‘Ata recorded in Musannif Abdur Razzaq which says that he say ibn Umar wiping over the top and bottom of the feet.
Report from ibn Umar is mawkoof and is not considered as strong as the report from the prophetصلى الله عليه وسلم. In this case you cannot pit one evidence against the another as other is stronger report.
So the evidence of wiping over top and bottom is very weak. And we know that ibn Umar went beyond what is established from the sunnah of the prophet.
The correct opinion is just simply to wipe over the top of the feet.
2011-03-27 Class Notes
Duration of wiping over the socks for travellers and residents
Missing text: She said asked Ali, as he is more knowledgeable than I am, since he used to travel more than me with the prophet saw. So I asked him and he said, the messenger of Allah said. This was the part that is missing in the textbook.
An-Nasai and Tirmidhi graded it sahih
Correction “Some say that the” should be “The best opinion is”
You get the impression that wiping over socks is time constrained or limited by time. Do all of you agree with that?
One opinion is that wiping is limited for 1 day and night for the resident and 3 days and 3 nights for the travellers. This is the hanafi, shafiee, hanbali madhab, one narration from Imam Malik.
Second opinion is that there is no time limit. This is the mashoor (well known) opinion of the Maliki madhab. And this is also the old opinion of Shafiee.
Within the Maliki madhab, there is difference of opinion whether traveller is allowed to wipe over the socks.
Some Malikis says there is no time limit for traveller only, and some say that there is no limit for both the traveller and the resident.
Third opinion: Another opinion is that individual may wipe over his socks for five prayers if he is resident and he can wipe over fifteen prayers, if he travelling and combining his prayers.This is the opinion of Ishaq bin Rahawayy
Fourth : In fatawa Al-Hindiyya you can wipe over your socks if you feel hardship from cold, then you can wipe over the socks...????
Shuraih ibn Hani said, "I asked 'Aishah about wiping over socks and she answered, 'For the traveller, three days and three nights; for the resident, one day and night." This hadith is related by Ahmad, Muslim, at-Tirmizhi, an-Nasa'i and Ibn Majah.
This is been quoted as staement of Ali and Statement of the Prophet and the sound opinion is that thsi is the statement of prophet
There is also narration from safwan where some scholars say it is sahih and some say it is hassan.
.. According to Al-Albani this is muthawathir. This is the hadith that is in the second paragraph of the text. You have many different chains and shaikh mentioned many chains.
What could possible be evidence for the second opinion?
At Tahawi records a narration from Uqbah ibn Amr that he came from Sham to meet Umar ibn al Khattab. He left Sham on Friday and reached Madina on Friday one week later he was wearing khuffain. Umar ibn al Khattab said, when did you last remove the socks. .... And then Umar said that you have caught the sunnah. That is what you have done is correct. [Ed: This was for seven days period which is longer than 3 days and 3 nights].
This narration is narrated in two different ways. In some narrations he says what you have done is correct and in other narration says that you have caught the sunnah sabt al sunnah, and in other narration he just says you have caught it (just sabt).
In the second narration, Umar ibn Khattab could have mentioned that you have done it correctly because of hardship.
The strongest narration is just sabt and not sabt al sunnah. If you cannot determine the correct meaning, then you will have to drop this evidence.
Imam Ahmad was asked about the hadith of Uqbah ibn Amr and he wipes over socks more than 3 days and 3 nights. Imam Ahmad answered that he is not allowed to wipe over socks for more than 3 days and 3 nignts. And he further states that the narration of the Prophet has more precedence over the statement of Ukba.
According to Bayhaqee, it is been authentically narrated that Umar believed in the time limits. So either it means Umar changed his mind about it or the better known opinion of Umar is that he follows the time limit.
So there is no question that what we have from the prophet is definitely stronger. Abu Dharr said that the safest opinion is to have a time limit, he is from the Maliki Madhaab and he is from Andalus. And he says that to have any other opinion is shaadh (defective).
Some understand the narration from Umar to be dharura or necessity.
And it is narrated by one of the Ansar, Ubay ibn Ghubarra, he asked the prophet whether we can wipe over the khuffain and he said yes and then he asked for three days and then the prophet said yes, And then he said as long as you wish. (This chain is Daeef Jiddan) Those who reject this hadeeth like An-Nawawi , al-zila3i , Ibn Hajar
Another hadeeth recorded in Daraqutni by Anas narrated that Prophet (saw) said “where someone make wudu and let him wipe over them and pray in it and not remove it unless he is in the state of sexual defilement.
Chain of this hadith looks good, except there is one narrator Asad ibn Musa who has been classified as sadooq, some claimed he is trustworthy, some claim he is not..
Suppose if you have narration from some how is like this and his narration contradicts with what is with muthawathir then no one will accept such narration.
Ibn Mundhir recorded that Ibn Umar said “wipe over socks as long as you do not remove them” the chain back to Ibn Umar looks Authentic. The statement is vague and We have contradictory statement from Ibn Umar, like in the beginning he was not aware of wiping over the socks and it seems like rejecting the wipe over that and later it was narrated from the Ibn Umar that it is for 1 day for the residence.and 3 days for the travellers and this is recorded by Ibn Abi-Shaybah with sound chain back to Ibn Umar.
There are couple of other weak narration from other sahabah supporting this. First of the all the view of maliki madhab there is no time limit. But we can see even though we may not agree they do have something which they rely on it. If we come across something like this that we have many narrations and evidences then we need to do tarjee7 i.e weigh on which is stronger ad the stronger opinion is that the time limit is set for wiping over the socks.
There is another opinion that says that you might wipe over five prayers if you are a resident and fifteen prayers if you are a traveller. Where did they get evidence for this opinion? Where could this come from?
Hint, it is related to the last two lines of Syed Sabbiq. How will the start time effect this opinion. It is based on the principle of Minimum of what is stated, there are case when you get more than 5 prayer in a day at the start of time. How would we response for this ?
Statement of the prophet is clear, he said one day and one night, and for travelers it is 3 days and 3 if it happens that you do more than five prayers, then it is alright. He could have said 5 prayers but he did not.
What evidence exists for wiping indefinitely?
If you claim hardship then there are many exemptions, you can perform tayammum or you can pray without making wudu. Frostbite as hardship could also apply to your hands or your face. Sheikh is trying to prod us and see whether we can some up with some evidence. If using water on your feet is dangerous, then it would be the same for your feet and face.
We will start with this next time.
2011-04-03 Class Notes
When does the time of wiping begin?
There is a difference of opinion, the different opinions are:
1. The first time you break wudu after wearing the socks. This is the Hanafi, Shafiee, and well known opinion among the Hambali.
2. First time you wipe after you break the wudu. This is one narration of Imam Ahmad, Conclusion of IMam Nawawi and the view of ....
3. Time begins after you put on the socks. This has been narrated by Hasan al Basri
4. Period begins at the time you prayed first salah with socks. This is the opinion of ......
There are no clear text but it is derived from the text. Assuming you sleep with your socks, what is the evidence for the first opinion.
DIfferent groups do have different evidence.
Evidence for opinion #1
Hadith of Safwan in which he says that the prophet ordered us to not remove our socks for three days and three nights when we are travelling except for sexual defilement. You can keep the socks when you go to sleep and when you use the bathroom.
How did they derive the opinion #1 from this hadith?
It is not a strong proof at all. It is a strange evidence.
They also try to use analogy. Scholars try to avoid using analogy in the matters of ibadah except in some cases. They say this act is time limited, and like salah when it is first permissible to perform it, similarly it is with socks, as soon as you put them on, from the time you break wudu for the first time.
Why is it not a strong evidence?
Because you can make wudu upon wudu, you can read Quran without wudu, etc.
Evidence for opinion #2
They quote the hadith of Ali. Day and night for the non traveller and 3 days and nights for the travellers. They say it has to start after the first time you wipe. This is a little bit of evidence. They argue that this is the most apparent meaning of the text and you cannot extract any other meaning other than the most apparent meaning.
They also state that the one who is not travelling can wipe for one day and night. They also state that if it begins the first time you break wudu as in the opinion #1, then you are wiping for less than one day and night. Can you explain this?
If you broke wudu after Dhuhr and wiped over the socks for Asr, then you do not make use of one day and one night for wiping over the socks, since you will make wudu for dhuhr.
Evidence for opinion #3
They are basing it on the hadith of Sufyan which states not to remove our socks. Hence they say that the period begins when you put on the socks.
Evidence for opinion #4
They are basing it on the minimum of what is stated. They say to be safe, it is five prayers. Is this a good way to resolve conflicts, when there are different opinions on this issue?
The only evidence is that you could use is the hadith of Ali, that would would meet the strict literal meaning of the text.
What is ibn Uthaymiyaan’s view on this?
He says that the best view is that the time for wiping begins after the first time you wipe. In order to fulfill the requirements of 24 hours, the time you first wipe over the socks after you break wudu, is when the time begins and then you have 24 hours to continue doing this action.
There are certain ahkam for the travellers with respect to prayers, wudu, and fasting. Suppose somebody is mukeem and then he travels, should be break his fast after he starts travelling, what should he do when praying Dhuhr and he has not yet started travelling yet, should be pray 4 rakat or 2 rakat, what should he do about wiping over the socks?
If he puts on his socks before travelling and he breaks wudu after travelling does his 3 days and nights begin after he did wiped over his socks?
The time he wore socks before travelling does not count.
Majority opinion is that he wipes like a traveller and not like a mukeem.
Now consider the scenario, the person is a traveller and he is no longer a traveller. And his 3 days and nights are not yet over. Can he continue to wipe like a traveller or not?
What is the definition of travel according to the shariah?
Ulema are divided over the question of what defines travel.
Opinion #1: The amount of distance that your camel can traverse for 3 days under normal circumstances with breaks for sleeping and eating. This is the view of the Hanafis.
Opinion #2: It is a distance of 48 mil, which is an Islamic unit of distance from the time of the prophet, it is equivalent to 1.97 kilometers. It is somewhere around 94 kilometers which is approx 60 miles. This is the opinion of Shafiee, Hambali,
Opinion #3: Travelling of one day and one night. They say it was opinion of Imam Ahmed, but he later recanted it.
Opinion #4: Three amyal, which is 30/8 miles which is 4 miles.
Opinion #5: ........
Opinion #6: Urf according to ibn Taymiyyah.
ANd then there are other opinions.
Evidence for these opinions
Dar al Kutni narrates from ibn Abbas that the prophet said that do not shorten your prayer in less than 60 miles from Madinah to Asfahan.
As a statement of the prophet it is weak, but as a narration of ibn Abbas it is strong. Isn't the statement of the sahaba, not a hujjah?
Some of the other sahabas differed with ibn Abbas. Ibn Umar was of the same opinion as ibn Abbas and this is authentically reported as well.
In general, if the sahaba differed, then we cannot say that their statement is hujjah. The statement of ibn Umar may not have meant it to signify the distance specifically, he said the distance of one hour or one sa’a.
Those who say that it is the distance travelled over 3 days, what is the evidence for it?
They use the following hadith of the prophet. A hadith of the prophet that a woman must not travel for 3 days except with a mahar.
If travelling was defined as 3 days, then the hadith would not state 3 days of travel. There are also other hadith that say woman cannot travel alone for one day and some say any travel.
Another evidence they use is the hadith of Ayesha when she was asked about wiping over the socks and she said go and ask Ali since he used to travel a lot. They say that the travel is minimum of 3 days. This is very weak opinion.
Another evidence, they say that in Arabic language, 3 is the smallest for plural. Any thing smaller than it would be kaleel. This makes no sense. so dont worry about it.
Three amyal which is 4 miles. Hadith in Sahih Muslim??? that says that when he used to travel 4 miles, he used to shorten his prayers. This is the statement of Anas ibn Malik. The statement says that as soon as he crossed that threshold, he shortened his prayers at that time. There is some doubt about the text. This makes the narration questionable.
Narration in Bukhari from Anas ibn Malik, which states that he shortened his prayers in Dhul Halaifah which is not that far from Madinah.
What about urf defines travel? What is the strongest proof for that?
This is ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion. There is nice evidence for it.
There is no where in the shariah, that travel is defined. And yet it is an important aspect of the deen since there are many ahkam related to it. Travelling now is very different from travel 1600 years ago.
Because all of them lack clear evidence, and since shariah did not define it, then it is left for the urf to define it.
If you go from one point to another point, you will not consider it travelling. But that same distance, if you pack your bags and staying overnight, could be considered travelling.
So this opinion of ibn Taymiyyah is very strong.
It is not just matter of packing your bags or toothbrush, you might take one day trip from Sacramento to Chicago and it is still considered travel.
There is no evidence in Shariah, that something you do regularly cannot be considered travel.
If you don’t feel comfortable that you travelled, then don’t consider yourself to be a traveller.
If a doctor says that do not travel from Sacramento to the Bay Area as a precaution for health reasons, then by the urf, this is something that is considered to be travel.
So you could travel less than 60 miles and still consider it to be travel by urf.
You can have more than one place of domicile (Sacramento and Houston) and travel between them you are a traveller and when you arrive at either places you are not a traveller.
2011-04-10 Class Notes
Continue with the text book. Description of wiping over the socks.... paragraph from the book. There is no description of wiping in the paragraph that begins with description of wiping over the socks.
How do you wipe over the socks, question to the classroom.
One view is that if you wipe over your socks with one finger or two fingers, that is not sufficient. You have to wipe with at least three fingers and whatever you cover is sufficient. This is the Hanafi madhab.
Evidence for this opinion is based on narration of ... when he witnessed the wudu of Hasan al Basri. He wiped over the top of his feet. And he could see the effects of the fingers on his socks. He could see the traces of his fingers on his socks.
How did they get three fingers? And is the opinion of Hasan al Basri, hujjah? And how can you say less than three fingers is not correct. It looks like mafhoom al mukhalafah.
Another opinion is that it is obligatory to wipe over the entire top portion of the foot. This is the Maliki madhab.
Evidence for this opinion is based on narration of Ali when he said I thought it would be required to wipe over the bottom of the foot, until I saw the prophet wipe over the top of the foot.
Hadith from Musnad Ahmad.
Third opinion is whatever meets the definition of the word wiping is sufficient. This is the Shafiee school, and the opinion of Daud al ... and ibn Hazm.
Fourth opinion is that you have to wipe over the majority of the sock. This is the Hanbali madhab.
Since we covered this in the lecture of January 13, we will jump to the conclusion. Shariah has not defined it completely. Wiping over the entire top will be difficult. Wiping over the socks is an ease and requiring to wipe over the entire top will not be easy. There is no soundness to the requirement of three fingers to wipe over the top.
Do you have to wipe over once or more than once?
When you wash or wipe in the actions of wudu, then we do it three times, so how many times do you wipe over the socks?
The shafiees and hanafis say that it is not sunnah to wipe over the socks more than once. What happens if you wipe over more than once? It is not the opposite of sunnah, which is makrooh. They say it is not makrooh but it is not a desirable act.
The opinion of .... madhab is that it is makrooh to do it more than once.
Ata’ is of the opinion that you wipe over three times.
Evidence for not wiping it more than once is that there not one hadith of the prophet that you wipe more than once. The only thing that is mentioned is that he wiped over his socks, so it implies he did it once.
They say that if you do it more than once, then you are moving from wiping to washing. Established pattern of wiping is once, since when you wipe over your head you do it once.
They say wiping is to make it easy. Hence it is just once.
Argument of Ata’s is that wiping is replacement for washing, so it should have the same rules for what it is replacing. As such if you have to wash three times, then you should wipe three times.
There is no evidence for wiping three times, so it is best to wipe just once.
If the shariah has not restricted it, then there is no need for the ulema to restrict it. The ulema are in agreement that any way you wipe is sufficient. Whether you wipe with one hand, or alternate hands, or at the same time, etc. There is no text that says how many times you should wipe or how you wipe. This is for the requirement, that there is no restriction.
For the Hanafis, it would not matter if wipe the right or left sock first does not matter.
When you wipe the ears, you wipe them simultaneously. Would it be better if you wipe the socks simultaneously? This is not a question of requirement. This is tarteeb.
Some scholars say wipe at the same time. This is preferred by the Hanafis and one opinion among the Hambalis.
Evidence for this opinion is the hadith of Al Mughira al Shawba where he describes the wudu of the prophet when he wiped over his socks, he put his right hand over the right sock, left hand over his left sock and wiped over them, And he saw the traces of his fingers. This is from Musnah Ahmad.
This chain is weak. Narrated by Hassan al Basri Aan Al Mughira al Shawba. Earlier scholars say this is tadlees and later scholars call it Mursal al Khafii.
Another evidence is from Al Bukhari. This is the hadith from Al Mughira where he reports that he went to remove the prophet’s socks and the prophet said leave it and he wiped over them.
This is an authentic narration but the description of wiping is ambiguous since it does not describe that he wiped them simultaneously or one first and then the other.
They make analogy between wiping over the ears and wiping over the socks.
Well known opinion of hambalis, shafiees and malikis is that you wipe the right first and then the left.
Evidence for this opinion
In general it is better to start with the right first. There is no specific text that you wipe over them simultaneously. And the prophet used to start with right first. In general this had to do with a choice that is available, wearing shoes, clothes, etc.
What invalidates wiping?
We read from the textbook and then shaikh read from the comment of Albaani about what invalidates wiping over the socks. He mentioned the comment of ibn Taymiyyah which criticizes that removing socks invalidates the wudu, since he said that a hair cut does not invalidate wudu, and you wiped over the hair to make the wudu.
2011-04-17 Class Notes
We are discussing what invalidates wipping.
What happens if somebody removes socks/shoes after wiping over them?
There are four different views.
1. He must wash his feet
This is the opinion of Hanafi, later opinion of shafiee, narration from Imam Ahmad
2. He must wash his feet immediately
This is the opinion of Maliki school
3. Nothing needs to be done and the person is still in the state of taharah.
This is the opinion of Ibn Hazm, ibn Taymiyyah, Hasan al Basri, Dubyan a Dubyan
4. Taharah now becomes invalid and they have to repeat the wudu
Old opinion of Shafiee, Hambali school, Abdul Aziz ibn Baaz
Evidences for the various opinions
Hanafis are of the opinion that spiritual impurity of the foot was covered by wiping over the socks. When you remove the socks, the spiritual impurity goes to the feet. They say that the foot is now impure and it now needs to be washed. This is a rational argument.
Hanafis point to some narration by Abi ibn Shaybah. One of the companions of the prophet wiped over his socks, then he decided to remove the socks, then he washed his feet.
There is some weakness in the chain of that report.
Report by Bayhaki in which Abdur Rahman abi Bakra (abi Bakra was a companion of the prophet) states that ...
There is some weakness in the chain.
They say that if do not wash the feet after removing the socks, then you are praying with feet that are neither washed nor wiped over.
If you conclude like the Hanafis and Malikis, who are experts in fiqh us sunnah (Shaykh was sarcastically stating this fact, because of the weakness of their evidence and opinion on invalidation of wiping over socks), then among the two, the view of the Hanafis is stronger.
There is no such thing as partial taharah, you are in state of taharah or not in state of taharah. According to Hambali, once you remove your socks which you had wiped over, then you are no longer in the state of taharah.
They don’t have any hadith. It is a logical argument backed by statements of the tabieen.
Proof for those who say that nothing needs to be done, is strongly based on narration by Ali found in musannat of Abi ibn Shaybah which describes that Ali wiped over the socks and then removed his socks and prayed. Narrations from Ali is accepted by Albaani and Dubyan a Dubyan.
Another narration from musannat abi Razzaq that says that I saw the prophet did the same thing as Ali. There is some weakness in this chain.
Another evidence is that things that break wudu are stated clearly and removing socks is not listed as one of them. There is no evidence that this act breaks wudu.
Another evidence is that if you wipe over you hair and then you get a haircut, does this invalidate wudu? No. Similarly about wiping over nails.
Is evidence from Ali a strong piece of evidence?
We have statement from Zouhri a tabieen that you have to wash your feet after you remove the socks that you had wiped over. Why is shaykh bringing this example?
The actions of prophet are hujjah. However actions are much weaker than statements. Actions of the sahabih are not hujjah, because they might have done it out of forgetfullness. If we have a statement of Ali describing it and stating why he did that, then it would be a strong evidence.
Faa means he did this immediately, where as thummah means he later did that. And thummah is the word used to describe the actions of Ali in the musannat of Abi ibn Shaybah.
Opinion of contemporary ullema about this issue
Mashoor Hasan Salman says removing socks invalidates the wiping but does not invalidate the wudu. Then he gives the analogy of the hair cut. Based on hadith of Ali and analogy he says that it does not invalidate wudu.
... say that those who say that it invalidates the wudu are very lax. He says that there is certain time period for the validity of the wiping over the socks. He says that this is special rukhsah for cold weather or some hardship and once he removes the socks then the rukhsah now is finished. And he rejects the analogy of the hair cut.
The only opinion that is backed by evidence is that removing socks does not invalidate taharah.
If you have doubt of the various opinions, then just do wudu after removing socks that have been wiped over. There is no such thing as partial taharah. You can follow the tabieen opinion that redid wudu after removing socks which have been wiped over.
Next issue is strongly influenced by the issue that we just finished discussing now.
Half of the foot is exposed. Partial removal of the socks that have been wiped over.
If you follow the opinion that removing the socks does not invalidate wudu, then the same applies.
Six or seven different opinions.
Based on the opinion of the previous issue, this partial removal of the socks does not invalidate wudu.
What happens when the time period comes to an end?
You have wiped over day and night, the period has come to an end, what should happen now.
Obviously different madhabs have different opinion.
Wash the feet
Hanafi and strongest shafiee opinion
Do nothing, does not invalidate wudu
ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiiyah
Well known Hambali opinion and old opinion of Shafiee
What is the Maliki view on this issue?
Malikis don’t have a time limit, so this is a moot question.
Evidences for the various opinion
Hanafis say that your feet are no longer in a state of wudu.
Strongest conclusion is that in order for something to break wudu, there has to be clear and precise evidence.
Narration from Safwah about ghusl and wiping over socks.
Is it permissible to wipe over the Imaama, and what about khamar?? for the women?
What is an imaama?
The above is a picture of Imaama and sometimes the loose end of the imaama covers over the face.
According to sufyan thouri and sufyan, dhahiri opinion and well know opinion among Hambali, it is permissible to wipe over the Imaama
Evidence for permissibility
Hadith in Sahih Muslim in which Al Mughirah narrates that the prophet made wudu and wiped over his forehead and his imaama and his socks.
Do you have to wipe over all of your head?
Just simply wiping over the portion of your head is sufficient. Wiping over the imaama is additional and not required.
Shaykh made a point that you can see the difficulties of the description of action of the prophet. And if see the difficulties of the actions of the prophet, then you can see why the actions of the sahaba are not a hujjah.
Ibn Qayum makes a point that there is no narration that the prophet just wiped over the part of his head, unless he was wiping over the imaama. In other words he is saying that wiping over the forehead is not sufficient.
Narration from Sahih Bukhari from ... that he saw the prophet wipe over his imaama and his socks.
Narration of Bilal in Sahih Muslim that he saw the prophet wipe over the imaama and .....
Other narrations that have some weakness to it.
Evidences of sahaba.
Statement of Umar that says that you can wipe over the imaama.
Abu Bakr, Anas, Abu Umaama,
Imam Nawawi says that the hadith that describes wiping over the imaama is abridged hadith and what they mean is wiping over the forehead and the imaama. And he says all of them can be traced back to Mugheerah. And he says that the evidence for this taweel is the verse of the Quran. ...... One should not leave what is yaqeen (certain) for what is ambiguous. And those that make analogy between socks and imaama are incorrect. It is easy to remove Imaama.
Sahaba knew the importance of their words and Imam Nawawi is saying that all of the hadith that describe wiping over imaama means wiping over forehead and imaama is very dangerous.
2011-04-24 Class Notes
We are discussing wiping over the imaama. The vast majority say that it is not allowed, which includes Hanafis, Shafiee, and Malikis. And those who say it is permissible, well known opinion among Hambali, Dhahiri, and two other scholars, Imam Nawawi and ..... I didn’t get their names again. But the important point is that it is not Sufyan abu Thouri.
Majority of scholars say it is not allowed, what is their evidence?
They were abridging reports, they say when the reports were saying wiping over the imaama, they were dropping the part that there is wiping over the forehead that is exposed by the imaama. This is not convincing evidence.
Ayah from the Quran says that it is touching the forehead, and they say that Imaama is not the forehead and you cannot wipe over it.
In the same ayah, it is saying about washing the feet and yet they accept evidence for wiping over the socks. How does this response sound to you?
Another evidence is that the reports of wiping over socks are mutawatir and if it was permissible to wipe over imaama, then we would have mutawatir reports for it to. And they say that if there was a general need for it and it would have been revealed because of the need, since there are no mutawatir reports, then it implies that it is not permissible to wipe over the imaama.
How would you respond to this compound argument?
There is no need for mutawatir reports, the hadith in Bukhari and Muslim impart sufficient ilm even though they are not all mutawaatir.
What about the need for it?
This is rukhsa from the shariah and there is no need for it.
They narrate the hadith of Ibn Umar in which he did not wipe over his imaama, he wiped over his head.
This hadith is matrook.
Another argument is that head is part of the limbs of the body that needs to be wiped for the purification of the body. They say it is not allowed to wipe over something that needs to be wiped, for example if you wear a mask on your face and you cannot wipe over the mask to purify the face. Suppose you are making tayammum, can you wipe over something that is covering your face, is this valid?
Here you cannot make qiyaas between tayammum and wudu or wiping over face and wiping over the imaama. Because we have evidence for it and you cannot make qiyaas in the presence of text.
Report from ibn Abbas, in which the prophet put his hand underneath the imaama and he did not remove it. If it was allowed to wipe over the imaama why did he put his hand underneath the imaama?
Maybe because he did not have wudu when he wore the imaama. And that could be one reason for his action. We do not have clear evidence that it is required to wear imaama after making wudu, just like the case of wearing socks after making wudu. The above hadith can be found Sunan Abi Dawood. But it is weak.
Abu Razzaq which says that the prophet wiped underneath his imaam. This hadith is weak too.
ibn Abi Shaybah reports that ibn Umar would not wipe over his imaama. The report is authentic. But if he did not wipe over his socks ever, does it have a fiqh ruling? Absence of something, is there some mafhoom al mukhalafa of this report?
Ibn Abi Shaybah reports that Jabir (ra) was asked about wiping over imaama, and he replied that wipe your hair with water.
Even if ibn Umar rejected it and Jabir rejected it, is that necessarily hujjah?
No, we cannot. What is the principle in this case? Something specific about rejection or denying something. When sahabi denying something from the sunnah, we cannot derive a fiqh ruling from the absence of a sunnah from a sahaaba, because there is no sahaaba who followed all of the sunnah.
Evidence is clear that the prophet wiped over the imaama. But the response from vast majority and also from Nawawi is that they do not allow wiping over the imaama.
However the evidence should prevail here and we should say it is permissible to wipe over the imaama.
Khattawi who is Shafiee says that the asal is wiping over the forehead and the hadith is ambiguous and he says that we will not leave something that is certain for something that is not clear. And we will not make an analogy between wiping over socks and .....
Nawawi and Khattawi, the two renowned scholars of Shafiee have this opinion and sometimes it is difficult to reconcile why they are ignoring the evidence. It might have been because of the influence of the madhab.
Underneath the Saudi head covering, they have a little cap or kufi. Similarly underneath the imaama there is a cap or kufi.
Is this comparable to a baseball cap and is it permissible to wipe over the baseball cap?
Those who do not accept wiping over the imaama who will not allow wiping over the cap. And you can add majority of the Hambalis who do not allow wiping over the cap.
There is statement of ibn Hazm and narrations from Imam Ahmad with different requirements on the cap that allow wiping over the cap.
Theoretical question: If you say that it is okay to wipe over the imaama. then is it okay to wipe over the cap or hat?
What is the illa of the wiping over the imaama? If there is no illa, then could you say it is okay to wipe over the cap?
Suppose you are wearing an Indian Imaama as opposed to an Arabian Imaama? Would you allow wiping over it?
Those who say that you cannot wipe over it is that the asal is that you cannot wipe over it. And there is no text for it. And there is no hardship. And there is no tail for the cap.
Those who say it is permissible to wipe over it, the evidence for it is the hadith of Anas. The chain has some weakness to it.
There is another narration from Abi ibn Shaybah, which states Abu Mousa wiped over his cap.
We have evidence from the sahaabi and we do not have any text from the prophet which says that he did not allow it. And if this is the only thing that we have and they say that is similar in analogy to socks, and it covers your head. They say that there is no statement of the prophet that said that it is disallowed to wipe over anything other than imaama or khimaar.
Narration from Anas says that the head covering was tied over the chin. They say it has to be something that is tied down and made it difficult to remove.
Shaykh personally feels uncomfortable about wiping over the baseball cap. But if you are in Colorado and if you are wearing a ski cap and it would be difficult to remove it outside, then you can wipe over it. Shaykh feels uncomfortable with wiping over the baseball cap, because of ihtiyaatan. But you have evidence for it and you can make your own decision.
What about wiping khimaar for the women?
It is the head covering. The khimaar is supposed to cover the shoulders and breasts.
The word khimaar is used for head covering of both men and women.
For majority of the scholars, Hanafis, Shafiees, Malikis and one narration from Imam Ahmad say that it is not allowed to wipe over the khimaar.
Best known opinion of Hambalis and ibn Hazm say it is permissible to wipe over khimaar.
ibn Taymiyyah has a strange opinion which says that if she fears cold then she can wipe over it. He says that Umm Salamah used to wipe over khimaar but she used to wipe over her hair. The chain is sahih and it is reported by Abi ibn Shaybah.
They use the same evidence that they used before.
Bayhaqi reports that go against the wiping over the khimaar.
Ayesha has narrated that when she used to make wudu, she used to put her hand underneath the ridaa and khimaar and wipe over the head.
Similar narration from Safiyah, where she would put her hand underneath the khimaar and wipe over the hair.
Reports from Umm Salamah that she used to wipe over her khimaar.
Ayesha did not know about wiping over the socks. Maybe Ayesha was not aware that it is permissible to wipe over the khimaar. So negation of an act is not strong evidence that in general such an act is not allowed.
If you are of the opinion that man can wipe over the imaama, then Shaykh says, he cannot see why it is not allowed for women to wipe over the khimaar.
Are wigs similar to imaama?
Lets say that it is a woman with cancer and she is wearing it for psychological reasons. In these cases it is permissible to wear wigs. But in general wigs are tadlees then you cannot wear it.
So wiping over wigs is permissible if the woman is wearing it for psychological reasons. Is wig now a proxy for head and it is not the same as wiping over the imaama.