Masah on socks - any comprehensive article on its justification

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

My interest is regarding the basis on which the modern Hanbalis are interpreting, perhaps innovatively, the condition 'standing up by itself', which have been used clearly in the other Madhabs as a measure of thickness. Such a condition appears to be in the early books of all the Madhabs. This condition alone is sufficient in ensuring that the socks permitted for masah in all Madhabs resemble each other closely in terms of thickness and sturdiness.

"standing up by itself" is not the condition, as I have previously made the mistake in translating it as, as I pointed out in a post below. The condition is:

4) That they are Thuboot bi-nafsihima... which I guess somewhere along the line either me or someone else made a mistake in translating this, and now I understand the confusion. Thuboot bi Nafsihima doesn't mean that they stay on by themselves, it means that they themselves are in a continued state of existence, meaning that they are one whole piece together, rather than several pieces wrapped together to form what would look like a sock. This doesn't mean that you can't USE something to tie it to your leg (String, Nylon, etc). And this is why it mentions having a sole, because a sole indicates that the Sock/Khaff is made of two parts, and this is permissible in the madhab, as opposed to being many different parts, and when untied from the foot no longer look like a sock of any kind.

Again the issue has been dealt with in the earlier books without directly mentioning "Cotton" rather they mentioned the conditions that Sh. Wahba Zuhaili mentioned, which inclusion means that anything covering the foot with the conditions will be considered permissible according to the Madhab, and thus Cotton that is not see through is permissible, according to the conditions of the old and new madhab.

I'm sure you'll agree with Allaamah Shams-ul-Haq Azeemabadi's statement here:

"We are all well aware that the concession of performing masah (upon the socks) can only be extended to all these various types of socks after authentically establishing that the jawrabain present today resembles the jawrabain upon which Rasulullah or the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) performed masah."

They need to resemble the socks in shuroot not in exact look and material because of the advancement of technology, and this is why Isslaam is Shaamil and Kaamil.

I am seeking such an authentic establishment for the modern day socks that were invented only within the past few centuries. Since you actually do taqleed of the modern Hanbalis in this issue, you have more reason and right to seek such an authentic establishment.

What I posted from Musa shows the permissibility of wiping over modern day socks if they fulfill the conditions of the Madhab, which most cotton socks do. The authentic establishment

If you missed it, here it is again

"[1] In the book Nail al-ma`arib it is explicitly stated that it is not a condition that the material be water repellent. Other books define thick as being thick enough to hide the color of the skin underneath it

.

This is also what Sh. Wahba said when I posted,

7) They don't allow the seeing of skin below them, so GLASS would not be permissible in the Madhab if it's see through, even though it's water proof.

So thick means that they don't allow the skin to be seen beneath it, not that they are 3 inchs thick, and in this regard you can think about the seal skin socks, are they excessively thick? To me they don't seem so, but yet they are still able to be wiped over.

Is a laymen obliged to go searching through old books of fiqh and trying to decipher if what he is doing is correct according to the Madhab, when trusted scholars of the Madhab have concluded so? Anyways, it's not only about doing taqleed of modern hanbalis, because no one would argue that Musa is modern or follows them, yet he came to the same conclusion. It's about realizing that this is the opinion of the Madhab, as has been deducted from it, and if you disagree it's up to you to prove why.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

"standing up by itself" is not the condition, as I have previously made the mistake in translating it as, as I pointed out in a post below. The condition is:



Again the issue has been dealt with in the earlier books without directly mentioning "Cotton" rather they mentioned the conditions that Sh. Wahba Zuhaili mentioned, which inclusion means that anything covering the foot with the conditions will be considered permissible according to the Madhab, and thus Cotton that is not see through is permissible, according to the conditions of the old and new madhab.




They need to resemble the socks in shuroot not in exact look and material because of the advancement of technology, and this is why Isslaam is Shaamil and Kaamil.



What I posted from Musa shows the permissibility of wiping over modern day socks if they fulfill the conditions of the Madhab, which most cotton socks do. The authentic establishment

If you missed it, here it is again

.

This is also what Sh. Wahba said when I posted,



So thick means that they don't allow the skin to be seen beneath it, not that they are 3 inchs thick, and in this regard you can think about the seal skin socks, are they excessively thick? To me they don't seem so, but yet they are still able to be wiped over.

Is a laymen obliged to go searching through old books of fiqh and trying to decipher if what he is doing is correct according to the Madhab, when trusted scholars of the Madhab have concluded so? Anyways, it's not only about doing taqleed of modern hanbalis, because no one would argue that Musa is modern or follows them, yet he came to the same conclusion. It's about realizing that this is the opinion of the Madhab, as has been deducted from it, and if you disagree it's up to you to prove why.

for the clarification and answers.

Is the opinion held by certain modern Hanbali ulama that it is permissible to do masah over the common nylon socks, a valid one in the Madhab?

I've come across many brothers from different Madhabs who give tarjeeh to this opinion.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

Anyone else know whether the permissibility of masah over the regular nylon socks, is a valid one according to the Hanbali madhab?

[Jadeed]

Anyone else know whether the permissibility of masah over the regular nylon socks, is a valid one according to the Hanbali madhab?

Who decides what is valid if not the fuqahah of the mad'hab? If numerous fuqaha of this mad'hab give tarjeeh to this opinion, then what else would it be but valid in the mad'hab?

[Ibrahimhanifa]

Does anyone know of any comprehensive article justifying Masah over normal socks? I'm interested in knowing the reasonings behind this increasingly widespread practice.

Can u please expand on 'widespread'?

[Servant.of.Allah]

In my masjid one guy used to lead Salah most of the times, yesterday I watched him making wudu...
LOL...BUSS on left foot and BUSS on left foot... MASAH on normal socks.

These idiots needs to understand that there are people praying behind them...who want a Imam with a valid Wudu

You be a salafi, thats not an issue - but atleast wash your feet; so that salafis and non salafis can pray behind you.

[Khali]

I'm not asking you to do anything. I fully agree with your methodology of doing full taqleed to a group of scholars whom you regard as reliable representatives of your Madhab. I'm only interested in how the modern Hanbali ulama came to the conclusion that the conditions regarding the Jawrab stated in the classical books of fiqh, can be fulfilled by the modern day socks, in contrast to the other Madhabs. Having said that, I'll admit I've already come across several Hanafi ulama from al-Azhar, who have managed to interpret the conditions set in the Hanafi texts in such a way that they justify masah over modern day socks.

I would be grateful if you could post here in future, if you come across any clear answers from your ulama, which demonstrates unambiguously that the early Hanbali fuqaha clearly had in mind the type of socks on which masah is being permitted today.

This is the Hanbali Musa Furber saying:

The statement that "the jawarib must be thick, and they must be sufficiently resistant to wear and tear while walking in them" is a bit off. The reason the Hanbalis want thickness doesn't have to do with wear and tear, rather it has to do with rendering he color of the underlying skin and hair indiscernible. Perhaps the phrase "the people used to wipe on the jawrabayn only because, in their usage, it provided the same function as the khuff" threw him off, since the purpose of khuff according to the Hanbalis is to keep the foot warm, not to walk around the campsite.

http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/h/37.html

and:

(1) What is intended by thick?

A quick look through the literature indicates that what is intended by "thick" is that the material be thick enough that the color of the underlying skin not be discernable. Basically: thickness is a quality that is not sought in and of itself; thus it is neither sought in and of itself nor is it something quantitative. So what follows is that regardless of the "thickness" or the "thinness" of the material: as long as the color of the underlying skin is not discernable, then it is considered "thick" regarding this ruling.[1]



There are few things in the basic literature that strengthen the above. First of all: nowhere do we find it said that the material used for a man's turban or a woman's hijab be of a particular thickness. Regarding a woman's hijab, it need only be thick enough so that the hair and skin that it covers be indiscernible.



Secondly: when giving examples of what cannot be wiped over, a common example is that silken socks cannot be wiped over when worn by men. That the example is qualified by "when worn by men" is quite significant, since from this it is understood that if the silken socks are worn by a woman that there would be problem in wiping over them. The only problem with silk in and of itself is when it is worn by men, since it is unlawful for men to use something the majority of which is silk. As far as I know, silk is thin compared to most other materials, even synthetics. So if a woman can wipe over silk socks provided they meet the typical conditions for wiping over barriers, then it would follow that other materials similar to silk in thinness and rendering indiscernible the color of the skin underneath it would also be acceptable.



For the sake of completeness: there is a weak position in the mathab that making the underlying skin indiscernible is not a condition. But this is a weak position, and should only be used when necessary according to the shari`a.

http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/h/35.html

[SeekerOfGuidance]

What is intended by thick?

A quick look through the literature indicates that what is intended by "thick" is that the material be thick enough that the color of the underlying skin not be discernable. Basically: thickness is a quality that is not sought in and of itself; thus it is neither sought in and of itself nor is it something quantitative. So what follows is that regardless of the "thickness" or the "thinness" of the material: as long as the color of the underlying skin is not discernable, then it is considered "thick" regarding this ruling.[1]

...For the sake of completeness: there is a weak position in the mathab that making the underlying skin indiscernible is not a condition. But this is a weak position, and should only be used when necessary according to the shari`a.

They need to resemble the socks in shuroot not in exact look and material because of the advancement of technology, and this is why Isslaam is Shaamil and Kaamil.*

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.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

Who decides what is valid if not the fuqahah of the mad'hab? If numerous fuqaha of this mad'hab give tarjeeh to this opinion, then what else would it be but valid in the mad'hab?

If you are implying that it is valid, then it seems to contradict the answer by Abu Zakariyya who deems the nylon socks as not fulifilling the necessary conditions according to the Madhab:

Yes, not permissible to wipe on them because they are not covering of the skin (aka not thick enough), but what is he talking about?
He is talking about that which is prevelant in this time that many people wear, that ARE SEE THROUGH, it doesn't mention cotton anywhere in that sentence, he mentions SOCKS that many people wear. Many people wear thin, see through socks, that like you said are nylon, in which case according to the Madhab wouldn't be allowed because they are see through, however good cotton socks are not see through.

Please refrain from making ridiculous comments, nylon socks can be see through, even when they are black.

Could you provide clarification on what is the exact position of the Hanbali Madhab on Masah over the regular nylon socks.

[Jadeed]

If you are implying that it is valid, then it seems to contradict the answer by Abu Zakariyya who deems the nylon socks as not fulifilling the necessary conditions according to the Madhab:




Could you provide clarification on what is the exact position of the Hanbali Madhab on Masah over the regular nylon socks.

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!