Masah on Socks! NO, NO, NO.

Masah on Normal Socks & Shoes

Although the Ghair Muqalids (Salafi's) like to do Masah on socks and say that there is no evidence that you cant, well, Shaykh Bin Baz clearly says that you cant.

Shaykh ibn Baz (ra) has also written in his Fatawa, It is not permissible to wipe over thin socks them. (fatawa islamiyya pg102).

Amazing how the Salafis reject the opinion of their own scholars and take the opinion of their desires.

For reference for all four mazahib see text below from al fiqhul islami wa adilatuhu vol 1 pg 498:

قال ابو حنيفة لا يجوز المسح على الجوربين الا ان يكونا مجلدين او منعلين لان الجورب ليس معنى الخف لانه لا يمكن مواظبة المشى فيه الا اذا كانا منعلا وهو محمل الحديث المخبر للمسح على الجوربالا انه رجع الى قول الصاحبين في اخر عمرهواشترط المالكية كابي حنيفة ان يكونا الجوربان مجلدين ظاهرهما وباطنهما حتى يمكن المشي فيهما عادة واجاز الشافعية المسح على الجورب بشرطين احدهما ان يكون صفيقا لا يشف بحيث يمكن متابعة المشي عيله الثانى ان يكون منعلا فان اختل احد الشرطين لم

يجز المسح عليه واباح الحنابلة المسح على الجورب بالشرطين المذكورين في الخف وهما الاول ان يكون صفيقا لا يبدو منه شئ من القدم الثانى ان يمكن متابعة المشى فيه

Therefore, if you are a follower of any of the four mazaahib, it would be Haram for you to wipe over thin cotton socks. Any Salah preformed by wiping over thin socks will not be valid and that Salah will have to be repeated after washing the feet.

Consequently, Salah behind an Imam who has wiped over thin socks will not be allowed. Therefore, Salah should only be lead by a person who has washed his feet according to the command of the Holy Quran or wiped over khuffayn according to the Mutawatir Ahadeeth.

In the verse of the Quran, Allah orders the washing of 3 limbs and the wiping of only the head. Therefore, if someone only wipes his arms or face, his wudu is not valid. The same applies to foot wiping and foot wiping is done only by the Rawaafidh, Shias.

Youtube Video

Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Hazm, Maududi have stated Masah on All types of Socks is Permissible.

They were wrong in this case.

What does Islamic Shariah say regarding this?

The following is an extract from Fiqhi Maqalat Volume 2 page 9-24 by Mufti Taqi Uthmani regarding masah (wiping) of socks for wudhu (ablution).

Note: The fatwa below is very loosely translated from the Urdu language and Arabic in certain places. May Allah (swt) forgive me if I made any errors in the translation.

Question

On what types of socks is Masah permissible? What do Ulema of Islam say regarding this?

a) As far as masah on leather socks is concerned, in this matter the opinion of permissibility is almost unanimous.

However, there is some difference regarding masah on socks made out of wool, cotton, nylon etc. Some put conditions to the permissibility of masah on such socks.

One famous personality of present times says that masah on socks of all types is permissible without any restrictions.

b) Below is what this famous personality says regarding the conditions which fuqaha (jurists) have placed on the permissibility of masah on such socks:

I have tried to find the basis for such conditions but I could not find anything in the Sunnah. From Sunnah it is established that the prophet Muhammad (saw) did masah on socks and shoes. Apart from Nasai, Book of Sunan and Musnad Ahmed relate from Mugheera Ibn Shabah that prophet Muhammad (saw) performed wudhu (ablution) and did masah on his socks and shoes (masah ala al-jurbain wa al-nalayn). Abu Dawood says that Ali (ra), Abdullah ibn Masud (ra), Bara ibn azab (ra), Anas ibn Malik (ra), Abu Amamah (ra), Suhail bin Sad (ra) and Umar bin Harith (ra) all did masah on socks and this act is also related from Umar (ra) and Abbas (ra). Furthermore Baihaqi relates from Ibn Abbas (ra) and Anas bin Malik (ra) and Tahawi relates from Ovais ibn Aus that prophet Muhammad (saw) performed masah only on his shoes. There is no mention of socks in these narrations and the same act is narrated by Ali (ra). These narrations prove that not only is masah on socks permissible but masah on shoes worn on socks is also permissible. None of these narrations mention the prophet Muhammad (saw) had put conditions on performing masah like fuqaha have put conditions. Moreover none of these narrations mention the material out of which the socks were made on which the prophet Muhammad (saw) and Sahabah (Companions) did masah.

Because of this I am compelled to say that there is no basis for the conditions which the fuqaha have put on masah of socks and thus if anyone does not follow their conditions then he will not be sinful. The summary of this research is that masah can be done on all forms of socks whether they are made of wool, cotton, nylon or of some other material, leather or oilcloth. In fact if cloth is wrapped around the feet then masah on it is also permissible.

Apart from him, Allama Ibn Taymiyyah has also given the same fatwa in volume 2 of his fatawa book. Hafiz ibn Qayyim and Allama Ibn Hazm have the same ruling that masah can be performed on any type of socks without any restriction.

Answer (till the end)

No Imams, Mujtahideen have regarded it permissible to do masah on the type of wollen, cotton and nylon socks that are available today. You have understood it incorrectly that there is a difference of opinion regarding this matter. In fact the opinion of impermissibility is unanimous regarding such thin socks. This is what Malik al Ulema Kasani (ra) writes:

So if socks are so thin that water can be strained through them then as per ijma masah on them is impermissible. (Badai al-sanai vol.1 page 10)

Allama Ibn Najeem (ra) writes:

ولا یجوز المسح علی الجورب الرقیق من غز ل اوشعر بلا خلاف ولو کان ثخینا یمشی معة فرسخا فضا عدا فعلی الخلاف

It is not permissible to do masah on a sock made out of hair Ghazl (i.e. cotton, wool etc) and that is without any disagreement among the ulema. If the sock is thick and it is possible to walk with it about 3 miles, then there is a disagreement. (al-Jar al-Raiq Vol.1 pg 192)

This shows that the socks which do not have to condition of thakheen ( ثخین ) i.e. water can be strained through them or they need to be tied because they cant stay upright because of their thickness or one cant walk a mile in them without shoes then masah on them is not permissible in the madhhab of any mujtahid. Yes, the socks which fulfill all these three conditions, there is a difference of opinion regarding masah on them.

As far as Syed Abu al-ala Maududi is concerned, he has taken a different path from the majority and this matter is one such place where he adopted an opinion different from the majority fuqaha. This is a serious mistake on his part. The arguments of Maududi which you have presented show that he did not try to understand the reality of this matter in its entirety. For your satisfaction the gist of the matter is explained hereunder.

The Quran in Surah Maidah has defined a method to do wudhu which includes the command to wash your feet and not to do masah on them. Hence, according to the Quran, feet are to be washed whenever wudhu is performed and masah would be impermissible in any situation even if a person is wearing leather socks. But the permissibility to do masah on leather socks is given so that masah is done on such socks and this permission has been given by the prophet Muhammad (saw) in tawatir manner and is undeniable.

If masah on leather socks was mentioned in only 2 or 3 ahadith then the permissibility of masah would not have been given because no alteration can be made in the order of the Quran based on khabar ahad. But because the ahadith of masah on leather socks are mutawatir, that is why in light of these mutawatir ahadith it has become the ijma of entire ummah that the verse of the Quran is special to the case when a person is not wearing leather socks.

Hence Imam Abu Hanifa (rh) states:

I was not convinced about masah on leather socks till the time I did not have evidence for it which was as clear as the sunlight in the day. (al-Jara al-Raiq Vol.1 pg 731)

80 Companions (ra) have related the order of masah on leather socks. Ibn Hajar (rh), in Fath al-Bari Vol.1 pg 176 writes:

A large group of huffaz have attested that the order of masah is mutawatir and some collected the sahabah (ra) who narrated these traditions and the number of sahabah was more than 80 including ashara mubashara.

And Hasan Basri says:

If the issue of masah on leather socks was not proven through tawatir or excess narrations then there would have been no place for any alteration or extension of the Quranic order to wash feet. (Talkhees al-Jabeer Vol.1 pg 158; Badai Vol.1 pg 7)

Hence Imam Abu Yusuf (rh) states:

Quranic order can only be abrogated by Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) only when it is proven by tawatir like in the case of masah on leather socks (Ahkam al-Quran lil Jassas Vol.2 pg 425)

The summary is that the order of the Quran is not something which can be limited to certain conditions based on 2 or 3 ahadith. For this to be done it should be proven by tawatir like the issue of masah on leather socks is proven in ahadith. Now as far as the issue of leather socks are concerned, it is established by tawatir that the prophet Muhammad (saw) did masah on leather socks and even told the companions (ra) to do it. But for socks made of other materials, no such tawatir is present. Khufain in Arabic language refers only to leather socks and socks made out of cloth cannot be called Khuff. Thus this permissibility is only for leather socks. For other types of socks, the command by the Quran to wash the feet will be followed. However, if the material of the socks are so thick (Thakheen) that their characteristics are at par with leather socks, which means water cannot be strained through them and to keep them erect one does not need to tie them and one can walk a mile or two in them, then there is a difference of opinion among the fuqaha regarding this matter. Some have stated that because such socks come under the meaning of leather socks, hence masah on them should also be permissible. And some have stated that because only masah on leather socks is established by tawatir, hence masah on anything else is impermissible.

Now socks are therefore of three types as far as the issue of masah is concerned:

a) Leather socks which are called Khufain; masah is permissible on them unanimously.

b) Thin socks which are not of leather and neither are characteristics of leather are found in them, like the socks of cotton, wool and nylon that are available today, the ijma on them is that on these masah is not permissible. This is because masah on them is not proven by such evidence, in light of which, the command of washing feet in the Quran can be left.

c)Those socks that are not of leather but their thickness give them characteristics of leather socks. There is difference of opinion regarding masah on them.

The gist of the entire matter is that those socks which are not made of leather, on them there is no difference in the mujtahideen regarding lack of reason for doing masah. And this is due to the fact that the command to wash feet in the Quran cannot be left unless proven by tawatir evidence like the reason to do masah on leather socks is proven. Hence the conditions which fuqaha have applied, on socks made out of material other than leather, are not due to their whims and desires but to determine whether such socks have the characteristics of leather socks and there has been a difference of opinion in this matter as well whether doing masah on socks that have passed the conditions is permissible or not.

After understanding the reality of the matter, now see those narrations in which masah on socks (jurbain) is mentions. In the entire ocean of ahadith there are only a total of 3 ahadith. One is from Bilal (ra), one from Abu Musa Ashari (ra) and one from Mugheera bin Shuba (ra).

Hadith by Bilal (ra) is in Munajam Sagheer Tabrani and the one by Abu Musa Ashari (ra) is in Ibn Majah and Baihaqi etc. Hafiz Zailee (rh), in Nasb al-Rayah Vol.1 pg 183-4, has proven both these ahadith to have daeef (weak) sanad (chain of narrators).

Abud Dawood says regarding the hadith of Abu Musa Ashari (ra) لیس بالمتصل ولا بالقوی It is not strong. (Bazal al-Majhood Vol.1 pg 96).

Hence both these ahadith are out of the discussion.

Now what remains is the hadith by Mugheera bin Shuba (ra). The issue of this hadith is that although Imam Tirmidhi (rh) has stated that it is hasan sahih, other prominent muhaditheen have strongly criticized this classification by Imam Tirmidhi (rh).

Imam Abu Dawood (rh) quotes the hadith and writes:

Abdul Rahman bin Mahdi would not narrate this hadith because the famous ahadith from Mugheera are regarding masah on leather socks. (Bazal al-Majhood Vol.1 pg 96)

Imam Nasai in Sunan Kubra writes:

Apart from Abu Qays, no one else has narrated this tradition and no other narrator supports this according to my knowledge. However the sahih narration from Mugheera is about masah on leather socks. (Nasb al-Rayah Vol.1 pg 183)

Other than this, Imam Muslim (rh), Imam Baihaqi (rh), Sufyan Thawri (rh), Imam Ahmed (rh), Yahya bin Mueen (rh), Ali bin al-Madni (rh) and other muhaditheen have declared this hadith daeef (weak) on basis of the weakness of Abu Qays and Huzayl bin Sharjeel.

Imam Nawawi (rh) in his sharh of Sahih Muslim writes:

Those people who declared this hadith weak, if each one of them would have been alone, even then they would hold more weight over Imam Tirmidhi (rh). Moreover, the principle is that jarh is given preference to tadeel and huffaz of Hadith are unanimous over the weakness of this hadith. Therefore, Tirmidhis opinion that this hadith is hasan sahih, is not acceptable. (Nasb al-Rayah Vol.1 pg 183)

This is the value of the isnad of this hadith which Maududi has presented as evidence for his opinion. You saw that this hadith is daeef and not acceptable to majority of huffaz of hadith.

Secondly, if for arguments sake, we accept the classification of Imam Tirmidhi (rh) and say that this hadith is hasan sahih, so in the entire ocean of ahadith this would be the one and only narration in which prophet Muhammad (saw) performed masah on socks.

Now how can we leave the clear command in the Quran to wash the feet because of this one solitary hadith which has been severely criticized by muhaditheen?

It has been seen that the matter of masah on leather socks was only established when the ahadith regarding it reached the level of tawatir and Imam Abu Yusuf states that if the issue of masah on leather socks was not proven by so many ahadith then there was no room to leave out the washing of feet as commanded by the Quran. The command of masah on socks is only mentioned in 3 ahadith. 2 of them have been unanimously declared daeef and the third one is declared daeef by the majority of muhaditheen. Only Imam Tirmidhi (rh) classified it as sahih. On the basis of such a narration, no restriction can be placed on a command by the Quran.

Thus Imam Abu Bakr Jassas (rh) says:

The reality of the matter is the verse refers to washing the feet like stated earlier. Hence, if it was not proven through mutawatir ahadith of prophet Muhammad (saw) regarding masah of leather socks, then we would never have said that masah on leather socks is permissible..and because masah on socks (made out of cloth) are not related in the same manner like the one regarding leather socks, thus here we have upheld the order in the Quranic verse to wash the feet. (Ahkam al-Quran lil Jassas Vol.2 pg 428)

Now the question remains that those Sahabah (ra) who performed masah on socks or permitted it, for what reason did they do this.

The answer is that the sahabah (ra) did not state anywhere that these socks were made of thin cloth material. And unless this is not stated anywhere then how can one prove the permissibility of doing masah on these socks?

The famous alim of ahl-e-hadith Allama Shams-ul-Haq Azeem Abadi writes:

Socks are made of leather, wool, cotton and all of them are called socks. And masah on any type of socks cannot be proven until it is not proven that prophet Muhammad (saw) did masah on wollen socks. (Awn al-Mabood Vol.1 pg 62)

On the contrary it is proven that these people who did masah on socks, they were either made of leather or were like leather socks because of their thickness and they had the characteristics of leather socks. This is why Ibn Abi Sheeba narrates:

Saeed bin Museet (rh) and Hasan Basri (rh) said that masah on socks is permissible on the condition that they are very thick. (Musanif ibn Abi Sheeba Vol.1 pg 188)

It is to be noted that the words in the narration is Thawb Safeeq (ثوب صفیق) which means that cloth which is highly strong, durable and firm. For reference please check Qamoos and Mukhtaar al-Sahaah etc.

Hasan Basri (rh) and Saeed bin al-Museeb (rh) both were famous and prominent tabeen and they gave this fatwa after witnessing the act practiced by the sahabah (ra).

Hence, by the practice of these people and their fatwa, it is established that those socks which due to their thickness have similar characteristics of leather socks, masah on them is permissible. And to clarify this thickness of the socks, I have mentioned the 3 conditions: that water cannot be strained through them, they would stay erect due to their thickness and thus need not be tied, and third that one can walk a mile or two wearing them. Such socks fall under the same category of leather socks and based on this, as well as the actions of the sahabah (ra), the majority of the fuqaha have included them in the ruling of masah on leather socks. Hence Allama Ibn al-Hamaam writes:

There is not doubt the permissibility of masah on leather socks was established without qiyas and hence qiyas of anything else cannot be done on them except if they enter the meaning of leather socks and by Khufeen, such socks are meant which have covered the feet completely and it would be possible to continuously walk in them during travelling. (Fath al-Qadeer Vol.1 pg 109)

So it is incorrect to state permissibility to do masah on any type of socks is established in hadith and thus the fuqaha who put conditions on them are wrong and did it just by themselves without any evidence. The reality of the matter is that the command to wash feet cannot be left unless it is proven through mutawatir ahadith. Because such ahadith were present in the case of leather socks, hence masah was allowed in its case. But regarding socks of any other material, no such hadith is present that can be unanimously declared sahih hence masah on them cannot be allowed except for those socks which fall under the same category of leather socks because of their characteristics. And because from the sahabah (ra) and tabeen, masah on such socks was established, hence majority of fuqaha permitted it and defined the 3 conditions which would prove something to fall under the same category as leather socks. Thus ijma of all mujtahideen is held.

As far as Ibn Hazm (rh) or Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) or Ibn Qayyim (rh) are concerned, their high status is in its place but they have taken positions contrary to the majority in many matters which the Ummah have rejected. Especially in this matter where they have provided no evidence for their ruling. Hence on the basis of an opinion from only these 3 people against the unanimous opinion from all others, the command of the Quran to wash the feet cannot be left out. And there is absolutely no basis whatsoever on the ijtihad of wrapping cloth around feet and doing masah on them. Allegations are raised against fuqaha by some that they have no evidence for their stand even though you have witnessed the undeniable evidence in this reply. On the other hand these same people do their own ijtihad in which you can wrap your feet with a cloth for no reason and do masah on them. Is there any source for this to omit the command of the Quran to wash feet?

The extract which you presented of Maududi has the issue of masah on shoes also in it. So now the reality of that matter will be discussed in short here in the end.

If socks are thick then there are fuqaha who agree to the legality of performing masah on them. However, masah on shoes is not permissible in any madhhab of the imams.

In Maruf ul San Vol.1 pg 347 it is written:

None of the imams agreed on the permissibility of doing masah on shoes.

The reason for this is that masah on shoes is proven by the prophet Muhammad (saw) at such a time when he (saw) was already in a state of wudhu but would do a new wudhu for a new salah. In such a condition, because he (saw) was already in a state of wudhu, he (saw) would do masah on shoes instead of washing his feet.

Thus there is a narration in Sahih Ibn Huzaima Vol.1 pg 100:

Ali (ra) asked for a glass of water and did a concise wudhu and did masah on his shoes. He then said: Prophet Muhammad (saw) used to do wudhu just like this when the previous wudhu was intact and not invalidated.

After this clarification it is clear that there is no room for a person who is without wudhu to do masah on his shoes when doing wudhu.

Conclusion:

All fuqaha unanimously agree that masah on thin socks through which water can be strained, need to be tied to stay erect and cannot be used to walk a mile or two is not permissible and neither is masah on shoes permissible. And because the socks we have today are thin and they do not pass the 3 conditions stated, hence masah on them is not permissible under any condition. The person who does masah on them, then according to Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafii, Imam Malik and Imam Ahmed, in fact according to any mujtahid, the wudhu of such a person will be invalid.

Mufti Taqi Uthmani

11 Comments

ummi taalib wrote on 27 Sep 2010

Jazakallah! much needed post

مجاهد wrote on 12 Nov 2010

The followers of the deviant Salafi sect are the only people who consider masah on ordinary socks valid. There only basis for their fallacy is the opinion of their Imaam, Ibn Taimiyyah to whom they offer blind allegiance. In the attempt to escape the charge of blind following, they do not overtly cite the opinion of their Imaam. Instead they cite the Hadith narrations which constitute the basis for the opinion of their Imaam.

In his Fataawa, Ibn Taimiyyah states:

"Masah on jurabain is permissible when one is able to walk in them, whether they are mujallad (covered with leather) or not is the most authentic view of the Ulama. And, in the Sunan: Verily Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) made masah on his jurabain and na'lain (shoes). And this Hadith even if it is not proven, qiyaas (logic) demands this (validity of masah) because the difference between jurabain and na 'lain is only this that the one is from wool and the other from leather. It is known that a difference of this nature has no effect in the Shariah. Hence, there is no difference between leather, cotton or woollen socks just as there is no difference between white and black ihram. At most, leather is more durable than wool. Thus this has no effect..." (Vol. 21 page 214)

Even Ibn Taimiyyah concedes, albeit grudgingly, that the Hadith narration pertaining to masah on jurabain is of questionable reliability. As such it is not valid to extend the Masah alal Khuffain ruling (effect) to jurabain. The law pertaining to Khuffain is the effect of Ahaadith-e- Mutawaatarah (Hadith narrations of the highest category, the authenticity of which is absolute). It is for this reason that we see that not a single one among the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and the Fuqaha of the four Math-habs claiming that masah on jurabain is valid.
While Ibn Taimiyyah has primarily resorted to logic, the authorities of the Shariah - the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and the Fuqaha - have acted purely on the Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) - on such Ahaadith of absolute reliability which constitute a valid basis for omitting washing the feet inspite of this act being a categoric command of the Qur'aan Majeed. Since the order of masah alal khuffain is in conflict with Qiyaas (the Shar'i process of Analogical Reasoning), it cannot be extended to jurabain in terms of the principles governing valid Qiyaas and also on account of the weakness of the relevant narrations.

It is of importance to note that Ibn Taimiyyah appeared on the scene seven centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Inspite of the vast chasm of seven centuries between him and the age of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen who had acquired their knowledge of the Shariah from the Sahaabah, he lacked the spiritual discernment to understand his error of differing with the Ijma ' (Consensus) of the Fuqaha of the first seven centuries before him. He had failed to understand that among these illustrious Fuqaha were all the Aimmah-e- Mujtahideen - all those noble Fuqaha who had acquired their knowledge from the Sahaabah. It is inconceivable that the Fuqaha of all Four Math-habs, from the earliest time of Islam, could have unanimously ruled in error that masah on ordinary socks is not permissible while a man appearing seven centuries later discovered this 'error'.

This position of Ibn Taimiyyah leads to the conclusion that the entire Ummah with all its illustrious Ulama and Fuqaha from the time of the Sahaabah had erred on this issue and for seven centuries the Ummah was in the dark only to be extricated from this darkness by Ibn Taimiyyah. This is most certainly untenable and unacceptable.

Ibn Taimiyyah's claim that his view is "the most authentic of the two (opposite) views" cannot be corroborated by evidence. In fact, it is baseless. We have earlier in this discussion shown that the authorities of all Four Math-habs - the entire Ummah - refute the validity of masah on ordinary socks. Among these authorities the position taken by Imaam Maalik is the strongest and most rigid. According to him masah is valid on only leather socks while the other Fuqaha hold the view that if socks of another material are as durable as khuffain and have the properties of khuffain, then such socks will be in the category of khuffain. Imaam Maalik was among the Taabieen. He had Sahaabah for his Ustaadhs. He did not appear seven centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) like Ibn Taimiyyah.

In a self-contradiction, Ibn Taimiyyah stipulates the condition of being able to walk in the socks. This is a condition which the Four Math-habs stipulate for the validity of masah alal khuffain. The implication of Ibn Taimiyyah's condition is that masah is not valid on such socks in which one cannot walk, i.e. walk with socks without shoes on normal terrain. Most certainly, such walking is not possible with ordinary woollen, cotton and nylon socks. Since ordinary socks do not satisfy this condition, masah on them would not be permissible even according to Ibn Taimiyyah.

It should be remembered that all the Fuqaha who lived seven hundred years before Ibn Taimiyyah, and in particular Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh), were well aware of the existence of the jurabain Hadith. Inspite of this, they ruled that masah on ordinary socks is not valid.

The ruling of the Four Math-habs, viz., Masah on ordinary socks is not valid, is the only reliable view and has existed in the Ummah from the time of the Sahaabah.

Blogger's Reply:

Its not just the Salafis who wipe on their Socks, THE SHIA also wipe their feet with or without socks.
Another common trait between the two.

Another baseless claim which the modernist Salafis make is that it is permissible to remove the socks after masah has been made on them, and perform Salaat. This is absolutely false. Firstly, their masah is not valid on ordinary socks. Secondly, if masah is made on proper khuffain, these khuffain symbolically and in the law of the Shariah acts as a preventer of the hadth (ceremonial impurity or Najaaset-e-Hukmi) descending into the feet, hence the feet are deemed taahir (pure) if at the time of hadth the khuffain are on. (Hadth is the state of impurity following the nullifying of Wudhu. In other words in the state of not being with wudhu).
If at the time when Wudhu broke, the Khuffain were not on the feet, then the feet will have to be compulsorily washed. One may not don the khuffain in the state of hadth, then make masah on them. The khuffain have to be put on after a complete Wudhu. If someone makes a complete Wudhu, then dons the khuffain, and later removes them before his Wudhu broke, it is permissible then to perform Salaat because the Wudhu is intact. The removal of the khuffain at such a juncture does not nullify the Wudhu nor masah because masah is not necessary on the khuffain which are put on after a complete Wudhu has been made.
However, once the Wudhu is broken, the feet will have to be compulsorily washed if the khuffain are removed after masah is made on them. Regarding salat behind a salafi imam: If the imam leading the Salaat happens to be a Salafi Ghair Muqallid and he is wearing socks, then Salaat will not be valid behind him. It is their common and permanent habit to make masah on ordinary socks. Their wudhu will therefore not be valid in terms of all Four Math-habs. Hence Salaat behind such an imam is not valid.

Hasan wrote on 27 Jun 2011

Salaam,

I am a Hanafi and I do masah on ordinary socks. Aside from all the evidences for and against, I feel that the spirit of concession offered by Allah SWT and His Messenger SAW is being missed. If the material of the footwear was of such importance, then the Prophet SAW would have clarified that and excluded all else. The concession is general until the Day of Judgment. We are enforcing upon the people a type of footwear that was around 1400 years ago! The Prophet SAW did not order the Sahaba do adopt a special type of footwear which was contrary to their everyday wear. They wore Khuff and He SAW ordered them to wipe over them. It is a well known principle in all the Madhabs that in time of need a person can resort to another school's opinion. And that school in this case would be the Hanbalis as understood by Imam Ibn Taymia. Dont forget in some issues he was light years ahead of his contemporaries. For example the principles of Market dynamics. Western economists have adopted
this and were astonished at his insight.
In todays environment, where the whole world wears ordinary nylon/cotton socks; the issue needs to be taken seriously by the scholars because there is a definite need for an agreed ruling across all the Madhaahib to remove this difficulty from the Ummah.
After all we seem to forget that Ijtihaad of a particular era is not necessarily binding on another era.
We could continue arguing forever and not agree, because the fundamental Usool of each school are different. We need to look at the needs of the Ummah and act accordingly. It has been done in other issues, so why not this one. For example, the disappearance of a husband. The Hanafi position is that the wife effectively has to wait all her life until and if he returns. but this was changed and Imam Malik's opinion was adopted by the Hanafis to make ease for the ladies. This issue could have continued to be debated to this day, but what impact would that have had on the Muslim women.
Similarly there is hardship at work places etc for Muslims who wish to practice their Deen but a blind eye is turned towards them. Surely this is against the spirit of Islam.

Allah knows best.

Salaam,

Below is a portion from the above quote :

�So if socks are so thin that water can be strained through them then as per ijma masah on them is impermissible.� (Bada�i al-sana�i vol.1 page 10)

�Allama Ibn Najeem (ra) writes:

ولا یجوز المسح علی الجورب الرقیق من غز ل اوشعر بلا خلاف ولو کان ثخینا یمشی معة فرسخا فضا عدا فعلی الخلاف

�It is not permissible to do masah on a sock made out of hair Ghazl (i.e. cotton, wool etc) and that is without any disagreement among the �ulema. If the sock is thick and it is possible to walk with it about 3 miles, then there is a disagreement.� (al-Jar al-Raiq Vol.1 pg 192)

* Allama Anwar Shah Al Kashmiri states this condition ( i.e 3 miles ) is baseless.

" This shows that the socks which do not have to condition of �thakheen� ( ثخین ) i.e. water can be strained through them"

* Thakheen does not mean waterproof. It means thick. And this thickness is explained by Allama Maydani in "Al Lubaab Fi Sharh Al Kitaab "; the famous Hanafi book of Law, as being : THICK ENOUGH SO WHEN YOU DO MASAH ON THEM, THEN WATER DOES NOT REACH THE FOOT.

" or they need to be tied because they cant stay upright because of their thickness or one cant walk a mile in them without shoes then masah on them is not permissible in the madhhab of any mujtahid. Yes, the socks which fulfill all these three conditions, there is a difference of opinion regarding masah on them.

* This is Allama Kasaani's view. Imam Abu Yusuf is the authority and he only mentions Thakheen.

And as far as Ijma is concerned then I quote Ibn Taymia as saying " Let them bring ten such people as proof ( let alone Ijmaa)."

Salaam.

Salaam, sorry bro, I just went through my post looking for something and realised that I didn't reply. I'm sorry.

I must admit that I have seen some very interesting arguments for doing masah on cotton socks and I have also seen the Hadith mention doing masah on socks. Not miss the verse of the Quran that has been given a totaly different meaning to suit ones method.

The method of wudhu was etched into the minds of the Sahaba for 18 years and thereafter the verse of which limbs were to be washed as compulsary were revealed. Also the hadith that mention wudhu eas done on socks also state in them that they were already in the state if wudhu and were just refreshing their state. Like the wudhu for eating, we just wash our hands.

I disagree with you and any scholar who says that wudhu can be done over cotton socks. I am aware that there is a book of 600 pages covering this aspect but I disagree, just like I disagree with the 600 page fatwa written by tahirul qadri on Jihad.

Hasan wrote on 30 Jun 2011

I have pasted brother Mujahid's comments from the above post on Imam ibn Taymia's " errors " and broken down his emotional rampage and added my comments below each paragraph. Now lets see what all this is about :

The followers of the deviant Salafi sect are the only people who consider masah on ordinary socks valid.

* Who said they are deviant and why? Proof not blanket statements.

There only basis for their fallacy is the opinion of their Imaam, Ibn Taimiyyah to whom they offer blind allegiance. In the attempt to escape the charge of blind following, they do not overtly cite the opinion of their Imaam. Instead they cite the Hadith narrations which constitute the basis for the opinion of their Imaam.

* Is it only Ibn taymia that allows masah on socks? No! Imam Abu Hanifa changed his mind about Masah on jawrabain when narrations of ten Sahabah reached him and many many other scholars. The properties of these Jawrabain is the issue where they differed.

In his Fataawa, Ibn Taimiyyah states:

"Masah on jurabain is permissible when one is able to walk in them, whether they are mujallad (covered with leather) or not is the most authentic view of the Ulama. And, in the Sunan: Verily Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) made masah on his jurabain and na'lain (shoes). And this Hadith even if it is not proven, qiyaas (logic) demands this (validity of masah) because the difference between jurabain and na 'lain is only this that the one is from wool and the other from leather. It is known that a difference of this nature has no effect in the Shariah. Hence, there is no difference between leather, cotton or woollen socks just as there is no difference between white and black ihram. At most, leather is more durable than wool. Thus this has no effect..." (Vol. 21 page 214)

Even Ibn Taimiyyah concedes, albeit grudgingly, that the Hadith narration pertaining to masah on jurabain is of questionable reliability.

* How Mujahid can sense that Ibn Taymia accepts this grudingly is anyones guess. Kashf maybe?

As such it is not valid to extend the Masah alal Khuffain ruling (effect) to jurabain.

* But the Scholars accept that masah is valid on Jawrabain. Just the details of the Jawrab are disputed. This statement is self contradictory.

The law pertaining to Khuffain is the effect of Ahaadith-e- Mutawaatarah (Hadith narrations of the highest category, the authenticity of which is absolute). It is for this reason that we see that not a single one among the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and the Fuqaha of the four Math-habs claiming that masah on jurabain is valid.

* What??? Of course they accept that masah on Jawrabain is valid. As I said before the nature of the Jawrab is disputed.

While Ibn Taimiyyah has primarily resorted to logic,

*No he doesn't. He has the narrations of ten Sahabah plus the above narrations plus Qiyas, that masah on Jawrabain is valid.

the authorities of the Shariah - the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and the Fuqaha - have acted purely on the Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) - on such Ahaadith of absolute reliability which constitute a valid basis for omitting washing the feet inspite of this act being a categoric command of the Qur'aan Majeed.

* Actually there are two famous ways of reciting the verse refered to above. Arjulakum and Arjulikum. One indicates washing the second indicates wiping.

Since the order of masah alal khuffain is in conflict with Qiyaas (the Shar'i process of Analogical Reasoning), it cannot be extended to jurabain in terms of the principles governing valid Qiyaas and also on account of the weakness of the relevant narrations.

* He keeps repeating the impermissability of masah on Jawrab when he knows the Mujtahids of the past have permitted it.

It is of importance to note that Ibn Taimiyyah appeared on the scene seven centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Inspite of the vast chasm of seven centuries between him and the age of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen who had acquired their knowledge of the Shariah from the Sahaabah, he lacked the spiritual discernment to understand his error of differing with the Ijma ' (Consensus) of the Fuqaha of the first seven centuries before him.

* Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal came after Imam Abu Hanifa and disagreed with him. Does this mean that Ahmad Ibn Hanbal's Madhab is Baatil? What logic is this?

He had failed to understand that among these illustrious Fuqaha were all the Aimmah-e- Mujtahideen - all those noble Fuqaha who had acquired their knowledge from the Sahaabah. It is inconceivable that the Fuqaha of all Four Math-habs, from the earliest time of Islam, could have unanimously ruled in error that masah on ordinary socks is not permissible while a man appearing seven centuries later discovered this 'error'.

* the above statement makes no sense. 1. The Aimma arba'a did not learn from the Sahaba. 2. There is no Ijma'a by the four schools. There is a huge difference even within schools.

This position of Ibn Taimiyyah leads to the conclusion that the entire Ummah with all its illustrious Ulama and Fuqaha from the time of the Sahaabah had erred on this issue and for seven centuries the Ummah was in the dark only to be extricated from this darkness by Ibn Taimiyyah. This is most certainly untenable and unacceptable.

* As I said. No Ijma'a. Bring proof.

Ibn Taimiyyah's claim that his view is "the most authentic of the two (opposite) views" cannot be corroborated by evidence. In fact, it is baseless. We have earlier in this discussion shown that the authorities of all Four Math-habs - the entire Ummah - refute the validity of masah on ordinary socks. Among these authorities the position taken by Imaam Maalik is the strongest and most rigid. According to him masah is valid on only leather socks while the other Fuqaha hold the view that if socks of another material are as durable as khuffain and have the properties of khuffain, then such socks will be in the category of khuffain. Imaam Maalik was among the Taabieen. He had Sahaabah for his Ustaadhs. He did not appear seven centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) like Ibn Taimiyyah.

* Imam Abu Hanifa changed his view and he was also among Tabieen. This is no proof. In Al Majmu Imam Nawawi states that Umar Ibn Al Khataab and ( If I remember correctly) Anas Ibn Malik made masah on THIN Jawrabaain! Read it. The action of a Sahabi validates masah on even thin jawrab.

In a self-contradiction, Ibn Taimiyyah stipulates the condition of being able to walk in the socks. This is a condition which the Four Math-habs stipulate for the validity of masah alal khuffain. The implication of Ibn Taimiyyah's condition is that masah is not valid on such socks in which one cannot walk, i.e. walk with socks without shoes on normal terrain. Most certainly, such walking is not possible with ordinary woollen, cotton and nylon socks. Since ordinary socks do not satisfy this condition, masah on them would not be permissible even according to Ibn Taimiyyah.

* If you cant walk in socks then they are not socks. that's what Ibn Taymia is saying.

It should be remembered that all the Fuqaha who lived seven hundred years before Ibn Taimiyyah, and in particular Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh), were well aware of the existence of the jurabain Hadith.

* Prove this statement. I have shown that Imam Abu Hanifa was unaware of these narrations until they came to him. You prove that Imam Malik was aware and rejected them.

Inspite of this, they ruled that masah on ordinary socks is not valid.

The ruling of the Four Math-habs, viz., Masah on ordinary socks is not valid, is the only reliable view and has existed in the Ummah from the time of the Sahaabah.

* This is totally false. Sahabah did masah on thin socks as is shown from the saheeh narration from Anas Ibn Malik RA and no one reprimanded him from the Sahaba. And silence of the companions on an issue is Ijma'a.

Hasan wrote on 26 Dec 2011

W. Salaam Brother. Jazaka Allah for the reply.
Looking through the Hanafi books like Al Hidaya, Quduri and Al Jawharah Al Nayyirah or Al Banaya etc. It became clear to me that the Hanafi scholars consider any footwear that 1. Holds onto the foot without needing to be tied 2. Hides the skin from being visible and 3. prevents water reaching the skin of the foot at the time of masah; comes under the category of Khuff and not Jawrab. The issue mentioned regarding being able to walk in them is not a reference to their durability but to the fact that they are something that are usually worn on the foot. This is why immediately after specifying the ability to walk in them the Fuqaha state that Khuff made of wood or glass are impermissible, because they are not normal footwear.
So in conclusion; according to the dominant Hanafi position. Socks that stay on your foot and hide the skin and are not so thin that when you do masah on them the wetness is felt. These are Khuffain and not Jawrabain. This is why I do Masah on socks as a Hanafi. Allah Knows best.

Jazakallah.

With all due respect, I must let you know that I am NOT a scholar. I have only taken evidence provided from scholars who have also come across all these evidences provided and accepted them with better explanations.

I would rather be safe than sorry and perform wudu as Allah has mentioned in the Quran, as it is the Quran that has priority over Hadith.

There are some Hadith that have the narrations of Ali doing wudhu over his shoes, but he stresses that he was already in a state of wudhu, therfore he did'nt wash his feet, and he also said that this is what the Prohet had done.

So for all the Hadith that state they had performed wudhu over socks, Where they already in a state of Wudhu or not?

Hasan wrote on 27 Dec 2011

Salaam.
I appreciate that you are a scholar. But I am taking from classical scholars and no matter how modern day interpretations may go; I stick to the opinions of the early generations when it is possible. I am sure you would agree that this is safer.

You stated:

"I would rather be safe than sorry and perform wudu as Allah has mentioned in the Quran, as it is the Quran that has priority over Hadith ".

You make it sound as if the Ahadith contradict the Quran and that you have to make a choice of either this or that. You do masah on leather socks ( Khuffain ) don't you? Is this method mentioned in the Quran or Hadith ? And if you say that the narrations of leather socks are Mutawaatir and restriction of a Quranic verse is permissible in this situation; then I have already explained what the early scholars define as coming under the category of Khuffain i.e meeting the 3 conditions. So these ' socks ' are Khuffain.

I am a Hanafi in Usool. So I would never use singularly tranmitted narrations to restrict Quranic commands. Therefore I don't know why you mentioned Ali RA narration since I have not used it as evidence in support of my argument.

So to conclude I say that the opinions of Imam Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Shaybani are the final word on the issue. So look at Hidaya and Quduri again, and see what they specify. You will find that I am following our early generation. Allah Knows Best.

I am very very sorry.

I had forgotten to type the word NOT in my reply.

I am not a scholar. I only follow what the scholars have given.

I too follow the salaf with the understanding that out scholars are giving today.

Sorry and Jazakallah. If you wish to discuss this it would be better to do so on the forum where you can have an open chance to express your understanding.

Jazakallah.

I sincerely apologize for my forgetfulness. I was helping my children with their home work and over looked the mistake.

No problem brother.

I don't wish to debate the matter on any forum in particular, just for the sake of debate. But if anyone thinks I'm wrong and wishes to invite me for a discussion on any forum, then I am willing Insha Allah. The only reason I stated my comments on this site was that I felt that it was giving out a wrong message. I don't believe that the general subcontinental view of the Hanafi Madhab is necessarily always accurate when compared to the classical Hanafi text. And sometimes opinions are refuted by Hanafis which are actually their own opinions. The issue of Masah is a classic example.
So take care. Salaam.

Jazakallah.

I too am in no position to debate. However we can have a discussion that will involve others too rather than just my unqualified views.

If you wish to discuss and not debate, then there are threads you could add your Hanafi points to. If so please register yourself as a user and let me know, inshaAllah, I may be able to add you to the required section.

Jazakallah for your views and for forgiving me of my error of stating my position.

Hasan wrote on 28 Dec 2011

Jazaka Allah khair. I will keep it in mind. Salaam.

Abdullah wrote on 1 Jan 2023

The position of Imam Abu Hanifa was on the invalidity of wiping over ‘socks’ not completely made of leather or soled with it. The position of his two main students, Imam Muhammad and Abu Yusuf, was on the validity of wiping over ‘socks’ as long as they were thick enough to prevent the immediate transfer of water – whether made of leather or otherwise. (Maydani, al Lubab fi Sharh al Kitab Pg: 59)

However, it is established that Imam Abu Hanifa went back on his position and agreed with the stance of his two students. It is narrated that at the end of his life he himself wiped over his ‘socks’ (jawrab), stating that he was now performing what he had previously forbidden. This, according to the scholars, was an indication of his ruju`. Thus, it is stated in Ibn Qutlubagha’s al Tashih, “It is related concerning him [s: Abu Hanifa] that he returned to their position [s: the two companions], and the fatwa is upon this.” This is also what is mentioned in the Hidaya, Bada`i, and by Ibn `Abidin in his Radd al Muhtar.

The upshot is that it is valid to wipe over any footgear that fulfills the conditions of wiping whether made from leather or otherwise. This is what is generally indicated in the texts and Ibn `Abidin states this explicitly quoting Nasafi.

Write a comment