Does the ablution of one who removes his leather socks after wiping over them become invalid? I hope for a detailed explanation of this. And if the answer is that the ablution does not become invalid, what is the evidence of those who hold this view?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : He asks: Does the ablution of one who removes his leather socks after wiping over them become invalid? I hope for a detailed explanation of this. And if the answer is that the ablution does not become invalid, what is the evidence of those who hold this view, and how do we respond to the objector?
The Shaykh : If a person wipes over his leather socks or over his socks, which are the *sharab*, then his ritual purity is completed in accordance with the evidence of the Shari'ah. If he then takes off these two leather socks or these two socks, his ablution remains and does not become invalid because of that. Why? Because we have an agreed-upon principle, which is "that what is established by a Shari'ah evidence is not removed except by a Shari'ah evidence". So if the purity has been established in accordance with the Shari'ah evidence, we cannot remove it except by a Shari'ah evidence. Now, if someone says that the thing upon which the purity occurred has disappeared, and that is what? The sock or the leather sock, we say that the purity of the ablution is a conceptual purity, because the one who performs ablution does not remove any tangible thing; rather, he removes a description that attached to him due to the state of ritual impurity. Therefore, a person performs ablution while he is among the cleanest of people, because he removes a description that attached to him due to the state of ritual impurity. This description that attached to him due to the state of ritual impurity was removed when he performed ablution and wiped over the socks and leather socks. And this description cannot return unless the state of ritual impurity occurs a second time. The analogy for this is: if a man wipes his head in the ablution and his ablution is completed, is his purity valid? A man performed ablution, wiped his head, washed his feet, and finished the ablution; is his purity valid? Think, people. A man performed ablution, washed his face and hands, wiped his head and ears, and washed his feet; is his purity valid?
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes, he washed his face, rinsed his mouth, inhaled water into his nose, washed his hands to the elbows, wiped his head and ears, and washed his feet to the ankles; is his purity valid?
The questioner : If he intended
The Shaykh : And he intended and mentioned the name of Allah with pure water
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah, he has no major ritual impurity. Well, his purity is valid. And after that, he shaved his head. After this, he shaved his head. Does his purity become invalid?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Well, the organ that was purified has disappeared, or the barrier upon which the purity occurred has disappeared, and that is the head, and yet his purity did not become invalid; rather, he remains in his state of ablution. Someone might say: The difference between the head that was wiped and removed, and the sock that was wiped and removed, is that wiping the head is the original ruling, and wiping the sock is a branch, a substitute for washing the feet, so the analogy is not valid. And our answer is that this difference is not effective. This difference is not effective, because the thing upon which the purity or purification occurred has disappeared in both cases, and this is the basis of the ruling. The basis of the ruling is not that this is the original and this is the branch. So the analogy here is a valid analogy. For this reason, the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), Ibn Hazm, and others among the scholars followed it. Yes.
The questioner : What do we respond to the objector?
The Shaykh : To the objector, we say: The original state is the continuation of the purity. Bring evidence that it becomes invalid.
The questioner : He asks: Does the ablution of one who removes his leather socks after wiping over them become invalid? I hope for a detailed explanation of this. And if the answer is that the ablution does not become invalid, what is the evidence of those who hold this view, and how do we respond to the objector?
The Shaykh : If a person wipes over his leather socks or over his socks, which are the *sharab*, then his ritual purity is completed in accordance with the evidence of the Shari'ah. If he then takes off these two leather socks or these two socks, his ablution remains and does not become invalid because of that. Why? Because we have an agreed-upon principle, which is "that what is established by a Shari'ah evidence is not removed except by a Shari'ah evidence". So if the purity has been established in accordance with the Shari'ah evidence, we cannot remove it except by a Shari'ah evidence. Now, if someone says that the thing upon which the purity occurred has disappeared, and that is what? The sock or the leather sock, we say that the purity of the ablution is a conceptual purity, because the one who performs ablution does not remove any tangible thing; rather, he removes a description that attached to him due to the state of ritual impurity. Therefore, a person performs ablution while he is among the cleanest of people, because he removes a description that attached to him due to the state of ritual impurity. This description that attached to him due to the state of ritual impurity was removed when he performed ablution and wiped over the socks and leather socks. And this description cannot return unless the state of ritual impurity occurs a second time. The analogy for this is: if a man wipes his head in the ablution and his ablution is completed, is his purity valid? A man performed ablution, wiped his head, washed his feet, and finished the ablution; is his purity valid? Think, people. A man performed ablution, washed his face and hands, wiped his head and ears, and washed his feet; is his purity valid?
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Yes, he washed his face, rinsed his mouth, inhaled water into his nose, washed his hands to the elbows, wiped his head and ears, and washed his feet to the ankles; is his purity valid?
The questioner : If he intended
The Shaykh : And he intended and mentioned the name of Allah with pure water
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah, he has no major ritual impurity. Well, his purity is valid. And after that, he shaved his head. After this, he shaved his head. Does his purity become invalid?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Well, the organ that was purified has disappeared, or the barrier upon which the purity occurred has disappeared, and that is the head, and yet his purity did not become invalid; rather, he remains in his state of ablution. Someone might say: The difference between the head that was wiped and removed, and the sock that was wiped and removed, is that wiping the head is the original ruling, and wiping the sock is a branch, a substitute for washing the feet, so the analogy is not valid. And our answer is that this difference is not effective. This difference is not effective, because the thing upon which the purity or purification occurred has disappeared in both cases, and this is the basis of the ruling. The basis of the ruling is not that this is the original and this is the branch. So the analogy here is a valid analogy. For this reason, the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), Ibn Hazm, and others among the scholars followed it. Yes.
The questioner : What do we respond to the objector?
The Shaykh : To the objector, we say: The original state is the continuation of the purity. Bring evidence that it becomes invalid.