Masah on socks - any comprehensive article on its justification

[SeekerOfGuidance]

I no longer feel good about that opinion and no longer practice upon it. It's too isolated to be safe. I do not feel safe wiping over any socks that are in my possession, as I do not own leather ones or SealSkinz or anything similar.

Long time to ask for a response!

[SeekerOfGuidance]

So the Hanbali position, according to both the traditionalist and Salafi hanbalis, appears to be distinctly different to the position commonly adopted by the other Madhabs (for now at least, although the first signs are out there of the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is adopting the same reasonings as their Hanbali brethren). Whilst such a position appears to treat the conditions as an objective in of itself, the other Madhabs treat the conditions as a means of providing an objective measure to the qualities of a Khuff, such as thickness, durability, water resistance, thus providing an accurate means of assessing the suitability of a proper substitute. Whether that substitute is called a 'sock', or a 'jawrab', or 'tights' is irrelevant - so long as they resemble the Khuff in its qualities.

Bearing in mind that the Khuff was used often by the Arabs to walk around as a substitute for shoes, in an age when the terrain was relatively rougher, it's quite surprising that the thin nylon socks today are deemed as adequate replacement or substitute. Soon it will be possible to manufacture women's tights in such a way that they will fulfil the conditions as they are being interpreted by the Hanbalis today. In fact, the weak position mentioned above by Shaykh Musa Ferber provides enough leverage to give the green light immediately.

One of the leading Salafi scholars of recent times seems to be quite sure what the most authoritative position on this issue is, which also demonstrates that they do treat the conditions as an objective in of itself, rather than as a means of providing an objective measure to the qualities of a Khuff, such as thickness, durability, water resistance, in order to provide an accurate means of assessing the suitability of a proper substitute.

Shaykh Muhammad bin Saleeh al-Uthaymeen (rahimuhullah) said:

"The most authoritative opinion is that it's permissible to wipe over torn socks, or thin socks, through which the skin can be seen. The aim of permitting wiping over the socks and the like is not that they should cover the foot, because the foot isn't /awrah/ which must be covered. The aim of the permission is only to grant license to the responsible person, and to make things easier for him, since we do not oblige him to remove his sock or leather sock when making ablution, instead, we say: It's enough for you to wipe over it. This is the reason why islam legislated wiping over the leather socks; and this reason covers both the leather sock and the ordinary sock, and the torn sock and untorn sock, both the thin and the thick."

Source: "Fatawa arkanul islam" q #145, p 338. Gathered by Fahd bin Naseer bin Ibraheem as-Sulayman, printed by Darussalam in 2002.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

This famous Salafi Shaykh states that, "It is also correct to wipe over socks through which the skin can be seen, because the permission to wipe over socks is general and no report of any restriction has been narrated. This implies that any socks which people wear may be wiped over...", basing it on Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah and others:


Praise be to Allaah.

The correct view is that it is permissible to wipe over khuff (leather slippers which cover the foot and ankle) or socks that have holes in them. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) allowed wiping over khuff and he did not stipulate any condition that they should be whole and free of holes or tears, especially since the khuff of his companions were not free of holes or tears. If this had any effect on whether one could wipe over them, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would have stated that clearly, for one of the basic principles of usool al-fiqh is that it is not permitted to delay explaining something when it is needed.

Imaam Sufyaan al-Thawri (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “One may wipe over the khuff so long as it is still clinging to the feet. Were the khuff of the Muhaajireen and Ansaar anything but full of holes and tears?” (Narrated by ‘Abd al-Razzaaq in al-Musanaaf, 1/194)

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Fataawa (21/174): When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) gave the command to wipe over the khuff, he knew what the normal state of affairs was, and he did not stipulate the condition that the socks should be whole and free of any faults. His command should be taken as general in meaning and it should not be restricted unless there is any shar’i evidence for doing so. What is implied by the wording is that any khuff that people wear and walk about in may be wiped over, even if they have holes or are worn out, without defining the acceptable extent for these holes and tears, because even such a definition would require evidence…”

This is also the view of Ishaaq, Ibn al-Mubaarak, Ibn ‘Uyaynah and Abu Thawr.

Imaam al-Shaafa'i and Ahmad – according to the well-known views narrated from them – said that it is not permissible to wipe over the khuff or socks so long as there are any holes or tears in the place where it is obligatory to do wudoo’. Abu Haneefah and Maalik differentiated between small holes and large holes.

But the correct view is the first view quoted above, which is that it is permissible to wipe over the khuff or socks so long as they are still clinging to the feet and it is still possible to walk in them.

It is also correct to wipe over socks through which the skin can be seen, because the permission to wipe over socks is general and no report of any restriction has been narrated. This implies that any socks which people wear may be wiped over. This is what is implied by those who say that it is permissible to wipe over khuff that are worn out, so long as it is still possible to walk in them.

Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) mentioned in al-Majmoo’ (1/502) that even if a person were to wear khuff made of glass, if it were possible to walk in them then it would be permissible to wipe over them, even though the skin beneath them would be visible…

And Allaah knows best.

Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn Naasir al-‘Alwaan

[SeekerOfGuidance]

QUESTION
What is the ruling about wiping over one’s socks if they have holes or are very thin?


ANSWER
Praise be to Allaah.

It is permissible to wipe over them instead of washing one's feet when doing wudoo’, if they were put on when one was in a state of tahaarah (purity), unless the holes are bigger than is ordinarily acceptable, or the socks are so thin that the feet would be judged to be naked because they show the colour of skin beneath them.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 5/246.