The Ease of the Shari'ah in Wiping Over Socks and Leather Socks

The Shaykh: , then this man prayed, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), after performing ablution, said in his supplication: "O Allah, have mercy on me and Muhammad, and do not let anyone share in that with us!" So what did the Messenger (peace be upon him) reply to him? He said: .
Look at this man who narrowed a vast expanse of Allah's mercy with his words. This is a statement that has absolutely no effect; why? Because he is making a supplication, and when a supplication is unjust and contrary to the Sunnah of Allah in His creation, it is not raised from the earth. So if the Messenger (may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him) said to this Bedouin: .
= -- Welcome ... May the good of it be replaced with other good, if Allah wills. Tonight the matter ends like this, and the best is in what Allah has chosen -- =
= -- ... -- = , so the Messenger (peace be upon him), as you hear in this hadith, says to the one who spoke incorrectly: , knowing that this narrowing is merely verbal, having no effect or impact on the society at that time, let alone having an impact on the society that would come after his statement in this unjust phrase. So what do we say about a person who knows that this condition has no basis in the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and yet he actually restricts the people from a vast expanse of Allah's mercy? Because he says, "You cannot wipe over this sock because the amount of the person's fingers, two or three, is visible through it." "You cannot wipe over this sock; why? Because it is not possible to walk in it for half an hour." "Why? Because it does not stand on its own on the leg." "Why? Because it is transparent!"
So we say: These conditions all have no evidence from the Book or the Sunnah. And since it is established, as we mentioned, that the Messenger (peace be upon him) wiped over the leather socks, wiped over the socks, and wiped over the sandals, and did not stipulate any of these conditions; it is not permissible for us to narrow upon the people this expansiveness from Allah's mercy, which is from the Shari'ah of the Qur'an: .
So we return to the socks with holes. And if I see that this question, as it is said today, is irrelevant; because the woman who wears these socks, I do not think she first thinks about praying, then secondly thinks about whether wiping over socks is permissible in general or not, and then thirdly thinks, "I wonder if wiping over these socks is permissible or not?" But we say, and a question may arise that is gentler than this: the flesh-colored socks; for some women have been afflicted with praying in such socks in reality. So a question may arise: Is it permissible to wipe over flesh-colored socks? I say: The motive for such questions is actually an idea present in the minds of many people; and that is that the socks over which wiping is permissible must be thick and prevent water from reaching the foot. I say: This is an opinion. In fact, it is perhaps right for me to say: This is a foreign philosophy in Islam that Islam does not know. What is the connection between the sock being thick, not transparent, and not letting water through, and the establishment of wiping over the sock from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)?!
There is no connection to that except the assumption that it is a condition that the sock must prevent water from reaching. I say, following Ali ibn Abi Talib, who said: "If religion were by opinion, I would say to wipe the bottom of the leather sock rather than the top, but I saw the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) wiping over the leather socks"; meaning: not on the bottom of the leather socks. If religion were by opinion, Ali would say to wipe from the bottom; because the bottom is what is affected by impurity and dirt, whereas the top is not so. But he said: "I saw the Messenger of Allah wiping over the leather socks." And I said, as Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "If religion were by opinion, I would say that it is obligatory to take a bath from urine and suffice with ablution for the emission of semen!" Meaning: wet dreams; the opposite of what is established in the Shari'ah. They said to him: Why? He said: Because urine is impure by the consensus of the scholars, so it is more likely that it be said that taking a bath from it is obligatory than saying that taking a bath from the emission of semen is obligatory, while there is disagreement about its impurity. But he said: Religion is not by opinion. Thus the text came with the obligation of taking a bath from the emission of semen, which is disputed regarding its purity and impurity, and the non-obligation of taking a bath from the emission of urine, which is agreed upon to be impure.
I say, quoting from these two imams, Ali ibn Abi Talib and Abu Hanifa al-Nu'man ibn Thabit, I say: If religion were by opinion, I would say: People, wiping over socks that let water reach the foot is more preferable than not wiping over socks that do not let water through; why? Because the original state is the reaching of water to the foot, so if something of this original state is realized, it is more preferable than it not being realized. But the reality is that this is a philosophy that I name it; whether we say it this way or that way, but we return to the infallible transmission, which is that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) wiped over the socks, so we wiped. And then it is not our concern after that to know the thickness of the sock; is it a full-coverage sock or a half-coverage sock? Do you have a half-coverage thing?

Those present: No, we do not have it.

The Shaykh: Yes.
Or it is, for example, less than that. All of this falls under the warning against it, as in His saying (Blessed and Exalted is He): , . This is from extremism in religion: wiping over the socks is not permissible except with such and such and such conditions. Where did these conditions come from? You have many scholars, so ask them if they speak; what is their evidence for these conditions? And I challenge any person who can bring even a slight evidence for any of all these conditions. There is only one condition for the permissibility of wiping over the socks, and over the sandals, and over the leather socks; and that is that they be worn in a state of purity, and that it be for a specific time: one day and night for the resident, and three days and nights for the traveler. This is all that came of conditions for the permissibility of wiping over these three things.
Yes.