Wiping over transparent socks and what prevents the man
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner:
I say, O Shaykh, that if the hand covers what is behind it, then it is not permissible to wipe over it. Perhaps you could clarify this evidence, for it is said that if a barrier comes between the hand and its original surface, it is considered as if it were not there. This applies to the case of the sheltered drink, and in this there is a distribution among the Muslims, so what he established in this statement is a fall from Allah.
The Shaykh:
Who is the one who says that if a barrier comes between the hand and the foot, one wipes over it absolutely? I do not know of anyone who said this. What was reported is that one wipes over the foot if it is covered by khuffayn (leather socks) or something that serves as their equivalent. It is not for every barrier, but only if it is a specific garment for the foot, a garment specific to the foot for the sake of need, protection from cold, or protection from thorns. As for any barrier on the foot, no, that is not correct. And as for the transparent layer through which the skin is visible, one does not wipe over it because it is not a covering. The wiping was only prescribed for the covering thing, and this is not a covering; the skin is visible through it. It is like a torn or ripped garment, or rather, it is more so, because it is as if nothing remains as long as one can see through this transparent layer. Yes. And the khuffayn, as you know, are known among the Arabs to be either open or covering. The hadiths only came regarding wiping over the khuffayn. We attach these things to them. The one who needs to attach this is the one who needs the evidence. As for the one who says no, he has the evidence with him, because the original nature of the khuffayn is known among the Arabs. Even Imam al-Shafi'i holds that they must be made of leather, restricting the matter to what the dispensation was reported with in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), because the dispensation is restricted to its specific place and not expanded, because it is contrary to the default ruling. The dispensations are restricted to their specific instances only because they are contrary to the default ruling. Yes.
I say, O Shaykh, that if the hand covers what is behind it, then it is not permissible to wipe over it. Perhaps you could clarify this evidence, for it is said that if a barrier comes between the hand and its original surface, it is considered as if it were not there. This applies to the case of the sheltered drink, and in this there is a distribution among the Muslims, so what he established in this statement is a fall from Allah.
The Shaykh:
Who is the one who says that if a barrier comes between the hand and the foot, one wipes over it absolutely? I do not know of anyone who said this. What was reported is that one wipes over the foot if it is covered by khuffayn (leather socks) or something that serves as their equivalent. It is not for every barrier, but only if it is a specific garment for the foot, a garment specific to the foot for the sake of need, protection from cold, or protection from thorns. As for any barrier on the foot, no, that is not correct. And as for the transparent layer through which the skin is visible, one does not wipe over it because it is not a covering. The wiping was only prescribed for the covering thing, and this is not a covering; the skin is visible through it. It is like a torn or ripped garment, or rather, it is more so, because it is as if nothing remains as long as one can see through this transparent layer. Yes. And the khuffayn, as you know, are known among the Arabs to be either open or covering. The hadiths only came regarding wiping over the khuffayn. We attach these things to them. The one who needs to attach this is the one who needs the evidence. As for the one who says no, he has the evidence with him, because the original nature of the khuffayn is known among the Arabs. Even Imam al-Shafi'i holds that they must be made of leather, restricting the matter to what the dispensation was reported with in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), because the dispensation is restricted to its specific place and not expanded, because it is contrary to the default ruling. The dispensations are restricted to their specific instances only because they are contrary to the default ruling. Yes.
Source
شرح بلوغ المرام من أدلة الأحكام [ صالح الفوزان ]، باب المسح على الخفين — islamhouse.com (50:21)
The Arabic text is a machine transcription of the audio recording.