Explanation of the Book on Ablution, the Full Ritual Bath, Menstruation, and Dry Ablution-06b

The reciter: Abu Nu'aym narrated to us, saying: Zayd narrated to us from 'Amir from 'Urwah ibn al-Mughirah from his father, who said: .

The Shaykh : This is one of the conditions indicated by the Sunnah, namely that one must put them on while in a state of purity. This is based on his statement when al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah wanted to remove his leather socks, where he said: meaning, "I put my feet in while they were in a state of purity."
And does his statement: apply to each foot individually, or does it apply to both together? In other words, does it indicate that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) washed the right foot and then put it into the sock, then the left foot and then put it into the sock? Or does it mean that he put both feet in after they were in a state of purity, meaning after he had finished performing the ablution?
There is a difference of opinion among the scholars on this matter. Some said the second option, and some said the first. The preferred view is to adopt the second, because there are hadiths in which it is said: And the term "ablution" is not used unless it is completed by washing all the limbs. Therefore, the precaution is not to put on the leather socks until the purity is fully completed by washing both feet entirely.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) chose the view that it is permissible to wash the right foot and then put it into the sock, then the left foot and put it into the sock. He stated that it is true to say that he put them on while in a state of purity.
So as long as there is leeway in the matter, do not put them on until you have completed the ablution. However, if it were the case that someone asked after having passed the time and prayed, having put his right foot in before washing his left, then the correct answer is to say: do not order him to repeat it, but tell him: do not repeat it and do not count it.
This is a condition that they must be put on while in a state of purity, and there is no doubt about this. There are other conditions:
It is also required that it be within the specified time, which is one day and one night for the resident, and three days and their nights for the traveler. It was said that there is no limit in this, and that a person may wipe whenever he wishes, and that the limitation was abrogated. It was also said that there is no limit in this in cases of dire necessity, but without dire necessity, one must adhere to the limit. This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him). He says: "In cases of dire necessity, such as if he fears severe cold if he removes them, there is no harm in wiping".
This view is not far from the truth, because the minimum we say is that if there is a dire necessity, it is like a cast. So do not stop as long as the necessity persists; wipe. But without a dire necessity, one must adhere to the time limit.
Then, when does this time begin: from the putting on, from the state of ritual impurity, or from the wiping?
There are three opinions on this, and the correct one is that it is from the wiping. That is, if a person wipes after a state of ritual impurity for the first time, the time begins from there. Based on this, if a man puts them on during the Fajr prayer and becomes ritually impure after the sun rises, and does not perform ablution and wipe until after the sun has passed its zenith, then the beginning of the period, according to the stronger opinion, is from after the sun has passed its zenith, from the first time he wipes. With this, a person can pray in the leather socks while being a resident for three days.

The questioner : Is that possible?

The Shaykh : Yes, it is possible. For example, he puts them on during the Fajr prayer on Sunday and does not break his ablution until after he has prayed 'Isha, then he sleeps. When he gets up for the Fajr prayer on Monday, he wipes at that time. The time begins from the Fajr of Monday. So he has Monday to wipe. He is allowed to wipe until the morning of Tuesday. And a quarter of an hour before the time he wiped on Monday, he wipes on Tuesday, and the period ends. But he remains in a state of purity until he prays 'Isha on the night of Wednesday. How many prayers did he pray in them?
The student: Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday.

The Shaykh : Three days. And this is based on the opinion that the completion of the period does not invalidate the ablution, and on the opinion that the beginning of the period is from the first time one wipes.
It is also required that it be for the minor state of ritual impurity. This is indicated by the hadith of Safwan ibn 'Asal: .
How many conditions are these?
Three conditions. There is no dispute about these. As for the condition that they must be in a state of purity, this is clear if a person wants to pray in them; they must be in a state of purity, because one cannot pray in something ritually impure. But if he does not want to pray in them, and he only performs ablution to read the Qur'an, for example, yes, if he does not want to pray in them but performed ablution to read the Qur'an, and there is ritual impurity on the bottom of the leather socks and he wiped over them, do we say that the ablution is complete and that he reads the Qur'an in a state of purity, and that if he wants to pray, he removes them and then prays?
Yes, we say there is nothing wrong with it. But if they are made from ritually impure skin, then wiping over them is not valid, because the impurity is intrinsic, and wiping only increases contamination and impurity.
Is it required that they be lawful, such that it is not permissible to wipe over usurped leather socks or ones whose specific price is forbidden?
There is a difference of opinion on this. Some scholars say that they must be lawful, because wiping is a dispensation and is not obtained through disobedience, and wearing the leather socks is disobedience. The correct view is that it is not a condition, because the prohibition of wearing usurped leather socks is not for the sake of wiping, but absolutely. They are like praying in a usurped garment. And praying in a usurped garment, according to the stronger opinion, is valid.
Is it required that they cover?
The student: According to one opinion.

The Shaykh : Yes, according to one opinion. There is a difference of opinion. Some scholars say that it must cover all of the foot that is required to be washed, and that if something of the foot appears, like a button, meaning the place of a button, then wiping over it is not valid. What is the reason?
They said that what appears is required to be washed, and washing does not combine with wiping, meaning it does not coexist with wiping.
The stronger opinion is that it is not a condition, and that this reasoning is flawed. Because what appears is required to be washed only if it is established that wiping over the leather sock is not permissible. But if it is established that wiping over a leather sock that has some cracks is permissible, then what appears is not required to be washed. So the requirement is wiping; one wipes over it along with the sock.
And this is based on the principle that the consideration is given to the majority. For this reason, the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) said: If one wears a garment that contains silk and cotton, what is the consideration? The majority. Here we say the same: if the majority of the foot is covered by the sock, then wiping over it is valid.
Is it required that they not be transparent? There is also a difference of opinion on this. Some said it is required that they not be transparent, and some said it is not required. This appears in the case of wearing a plastic sock. The jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) said if one wears a glass sock, but this is difficult. Rather, if one wears a plastic sock now, it is possible. So according to our school, the Hanbali school, wiping over them is not valid. Why? Because it is transparent, even though nothing of the foot appears, but they say that it is transparent.
The Shafi'is said with us that wiping over it is valid, along with their saying that covering is required. They said that because nothing of the foot appears from it, and the condition is not covering the foot, but the condition is that nothing of the foot appears. This is closer to the principles of our jurists, but all of their opinions are the weaker position.
The correct view is that whenever there is something in it that provides benefit to the person and a type of difficulty in removing it, then wiping over it is permissible.
For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sent out a military expedition and ordered them to wipe over the headwraps and the leather socks. The headwraps are the turbans, and the leather socks are the socks. Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) said, I think he or someone else said: This is evidence that whatever warms the foot, wiping over it is permissible, so that the person is not harmed by exposing them and then washing them, especially in the days of winter.
Is the ability to walk in them a condition?

The questioner : No, it is not a condition.

The Shaykh : There is a difference of opinion. Some say that it must be possible to walk in them. So if his foot is very small and he wears a large sock, then it is not possible to walk in it, because his small foot did not fill the leg of the sock, so how can he walk in it?
The correct view is that wiping over it is valid, because this may be needed if a person is sick and does not want to walk and wears a sock of this kind. Do we say he wipes over it or not?
We say he wipes over it as long as the foot is warm with it and there is difficulty in removing it, so let him wipe over it.
The important point is that the principle in our school in this matter is that we say: whatever the jurists have not established as a condition for wiping over the leather socks among the conditions they mentioned, we do not consider it, and we leave the matter as the Shari'ah left it open, because that is a facilitation for the Muslim community, and because it is not our right to restrict what Allah has left open for His servants. And Allah knows best.

The questioner : Khalid has a research paper, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Research on what?

The questioner : Research on the chains of a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : No, I think he excused himself due to an exam, because he says that the poor person does not have to pay zakah, and he is poor at the moment.

The questioner : Shaykh, regarding the mudd and the sa'.

The Shaykh : Yes, I forgot because I am grading the students' exams, and this grading is a problem that cuts a person off; time passes by while he is just giving a grade, adding a grade, or deducting half a grade. Then some students open up something for you that you do not know, and the first answer is correct, but then...

The questioner : It is a great hardship.

The Shaykh : A hardship, a hardship that only one who suffers from it knows. Then, after that, may Allah will it, some people have very beautiful handwriting, and one feels at ease with it.

The questioner : The opposite, you mean?

The Shaykh : No, that is correct. And there is handwriting that you cannot read; you know, the lam and the alif, he puts the belly...

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : No, if Allah wills, we will finish.