May be some cant read with understanding.
Khair. (since some dont like to open links, I have taken parts of it out here)
(by the way, its the work of scholars)
Shaykh ibn Baz رضي الله عنه has written in his Fatawa, "It is not permissible to wipe over thin socks...". (fatawa islamiyya pg102).
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 الجورب...الا انه رجع الى قول الصاحبين في اخر عمره...واشترط 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.
Then Pops along a new group who want to go against the 4 schols and start a 5th school. Proof of splitting from the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'
Quote taken from another post, but you have answered your very own misconception.
Abu Ahmad wrote:
Muadh_Khan wrote:
Perhaps he has a daleel for what he says and believes in?
The followers of the Salafi sect are the only people who consider masah on ordinary socks valid. (Apart from the Shia, but atleast they wipe the skin of the feet, even though it not valid). There only basis for this is the opinion Ibn Taymiyyah (rahmatullahi alaih):
In his Fataawa, Ibn Taimiyyah (rahmatullahi alaih) 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 (rahmatullahi alaih) concedes 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).
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.
