The ruling on breaking wudu' by removing the leather socks
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Question:
May Allah reward you, Honorable Shaykh. A questioner says: Some scholars hold that merely removing the leather socks breaks the wudu', while others do not hold that. Some of them distinguish between removing the leather socks while in a state of purity and removing them after becoming ritually impure. The question is: What is the stronger position in this issue?
Answer:
I have not come across these opinions, but the majority of scholars hold that if the one who wiped over the leather socks removes them, his wudu' becomes invalid, because he removed the thing over which he wiped, and thus the place of the dispensation is gone. The place of the dispensation is the thing over which he wiped. So if he removes it, the place of the dispensation is gone, and the ruling is gone. Some say that if he performed wudu' and the time limit has not expired, and he wiped, his state of ritual impurity is lifted even if he removes them afterwards. And among them is Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, who holds that removing the leather sock after wiping over it does not break the wudu'. He says this is like the hair of the head: if one wipes over it and then shaves it, his wudu' does not become invalid, even though he wiped over the hair of the head.
So we say there is a difference between the hair of the head and the leather sock, because the hair of the head retains its roots; the hair does not disappear completely, but its roots remain, and the roots have the ruling of the branches. This is unlike the leather sock: if it is removed, nothing of it remains, and the foot becomes exposed. And when the foot is exposed, its obligation is washing. Wiping is only because the foot is covered. So if what is on it is uncovered and it appears, its obligation is washing, because the place of the dispensation is gone.
The presenter:
May Allah reward you
May Allah reward you, Honorable Shaykh. A questioner says: Some scholars hold that merely removing the leather socks breaks the wudu', while others do not hold that. Some of them distinguish between removing the leather socks while in a state of purity and removing them after becoming ritually impure. The question is: What is the stronger position in this issue?
Answer:
I have not come across these opinions, but the majority of scholars hold that if the one who wiped over the leather socks removes them, his wudu' becomes invalid, because he removed the thing over which he wiped, and thus the place of the dispensation is gone. The place of the dispensation is the thing over which he wiped. So if he removes it, the place of the dispensation is gone, and the ruling is gone. Some say that if he performed wudu' and the time limit has not expired, and he wiped, his state of ritual impurity is lifted even if he removes them afterwards. And among them is Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, who holds that removing the leather sock after wiping over it does not break the wudu'. He says this is like the hair of the head: if one wipes over it and then shaves it, his wudu' does not become invalid, even though he wiped over the hair of the head.
So we say there is a difference between the hair of the head and the leather sock, because the hair of the head retains its roots; the hair does not disappear completely, but its roots remain, and the roots have the ruling of the branches. This is unlike the leather sock: if it is removed, nothing of it remains, and the foot becomes exposed. And when the foot is exposed, its obligation is washing. Wiping is only because the foot is covered. So if what is on it is uncovered and it appears, its obligation is washing, because the place of the dispensation is gone.
The presenter:
May Allah reward you
Source
75-اللقاء الأسبوعي مع الشيخ صالح الفوزان - 16 — archive.org (16:30)
The Arabic text is a machine transcription of the audio recording.