Can this not be analogized to wiping over the leather socks and wiping over the turban?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Should we not analogize this to wiping over the turban and wiping over the leather socks? I mean, it is of the same kind, roughly speaking; I mean, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) wiped over the turban, and you know that in the Shari'ah, wiping over the socks is prescribed.
The Shaykh : The socks.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : The link, what is the common factor between this and that?
The questioner : The head is one of the limbs of wudu, and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was... and when he tied something on his head, he wiped over this part and completed the wiping over his head.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : So likewise, it is a limb of wudu, and the need arose to leave its washing.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : So he washes the rest.
The Shaykh : If your opinion is convinced of the validity of this analogy, there is no harm in adopting it; I am not convinced of it.
The questioner : I mean, I see the analogy as clear, I mean, this is a limb and that is a limb, the need arose to cover this, and the need arose to cover that.
The Shaykh : Because in some issues, as you know, I will say why, but I want to establish something before I give a direct answer. In jurisprudential issues, Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) used to say that the meaning is permissible in itself, but a person is unable to express it. This is what Imam al-Shafi'i the Qurashi said, and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated it from him in his book "The Manners of Imam al-Shafi'i and His Virtues." Therefore, if an authority or a student of knowledge is not convinced, it is not necessary that he be able to express the reason for his lack of conviction regarding such an analogy; knowing that there are many issues in which some of the Imams expressed doubt, like this issue, and other Imams did not adopt that analogy, and it is not easy for us to know the reason for their not adopting it.
As for here, I return now to answering the question directly; I know, and you all know, that a Muslim being wounded, especially in times when wounds are common, such as wars, is a matter that frequently occurs. And since that is the case, bandaging follows the occurrence of these wounds. If it were a religious obligation for these bandaged persons, in any part of their bodies, to let the water reach the skin, whether in wudu or ghusl, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) would have commanded it. And if I were to use the expression of some of the usuliyyun, like the Hanafis, in whose school we grew up seeking knowledge, I would say: This is an issue in which affliction is common, so the report must come after the report, following one another, if not to the level of mutawatir; how is it when it has not reached us, not even by a good path upon which the argument stands?
So in short: what prevents the argument for the analogy is that this could be a concession permitted by the Lawgiver, while He made wiping over the head a necessary matter that must be done, and made wiping over the leather socks or socks or sandals a substitute for washing. The existence of what I pointed to is what prevents me from adopting such an analogy, just as it prevented others before me. In any case, the matter is broad; if any of you sees it and his soul is convinced of such an analogy, he may adopt it, indeed it is his obligation, but that does not oblige the others to it; because[Al-Baqarah 2:286].
The Shaykh : The socks.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : The link, what is the common factor between this and that?
The questioner : The head is one of the limbs of wudu, and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was... and when he tied something on his head, he wiped over this part and completed the wiping over his head.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : So likewise, it is a limb of wudu, and the need arose to leave its washing.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : So he washes the rest.
The Shaykh : If your opinion is convinced of the validity of this analogy, there is no harm in adopting it; I am not convinced of it.
The questioner : I mean, I see the analogy as clear, I mean, this is a limb and that is a limb, the need arose to cover this, and the need arose to cover that.
The Shaykh : Because in some issues, as you know, I will say why, but I want to establish something before I give a direct answer. In jurisprudential issues, Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) used to say that the meaning is permissible in itself, but a person is unable to express it. This is what Imam al-Shafi'i the Qurashi said, and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated it from him in his book "The Manners of Imam al-Shafi'i and His Virtues." Therefore, if an authority or a student of knowledge is not convinced, it is not necessary that he be able to express the reason for his lack of conviction regarding such an analogy; knowing that there are many issues in which some of the Imams expressed doubt, like this issue, and other Imams did not adopt that analogy, and it is not easy for us to know the reason for their not adopting it.
As for here, I return now to answering the question directly; I know, and you all know, that a Muslim being wounded, especially in times when wounds are common, such as wars, is a matter that frequently occurs. And since that is the case, bandaging follows the occurrence of these wounds. If it were a religious obligation for these bandaged persons, in any part of their bodies, to let the water reach the skin, whether in wudu or ghusl, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) would have commanded it. And if I were to use the expression of some of the usuliyyun, like the Hanafis, in whose school we grew up seeking knowledge, I would say: This is an issue in which affliction is common, so the report must come after the report, following one another, if not to the level of mutawatir; how is it when it has not reached us, not even by a good path upon which the argument stands?
So in short: what prevents the argument for the analogy is that this could be a concession permitted by the Lawgiver, while He made wiping over the head a necessary matter that must be done, and made wiping over the leather socks or socks or sandals a substitute for washing. The existence of what I pointed to is what prevents me from adopting such an analogy, just as it prevented others before me. In any case, the matter is broad; if any of you sees it and his soul is convinced of such an analogy, he may adopt it, indeed it is his obligation, but that does not oblige the others to it; because
Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its capacity
لَا يُكَلِّفُ اللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.