Explanation of the author's statement: "Then he washes his feet including the ankles."

The Shaykh :"Then he washes his feet including the ankles" He washes his right and left feet including the ankles. We say regarding his statement "including the ankles" what we said regarding his statement "including the elbows." The word "with" (ma'a) does not contradict the Qur'an, for the Qur'an used "to" (ila) in its expression, but the Sunnah indicated that "to" here means "with." This is because it is established in Sahih Muslim from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah Therefore, the ankles are included in the washing of the feet. Where are the ankles? They are the two prominent bones at the bottom of the lower leg; these are the ankles. Each foot has two ankles. This is what the people of the Sunnah agreed upon, stating that the ankles are the two prominent bones at the bottom of the lower leg where it connects to the foot. It is obligatory to wash the feet because Allah said The reading of "your feet" (arjilakum) in the accusative case is a conjunction to and not to . What is closest to it? Your hands are the closest washed part to it. But the conjunction is not to the conjunct, but to the first conjunct. Okay. And this makes it clear that it is obligatory to wash the feet. If you ask, what do you do with another reading of the seven canonical readings that is not less established than the accusative reading, "your feet" (arjilikum) in the genitive case? The answer to that is that the phrase in the genitive case has three ways of deriving it. The first way is that its genitive case is by way of proximity, meaning that a thing follows what is adjacent to it in wording, not in ruling. The word adjacent to it is "your heads" (ru'usikum) in the genitive case, so it is put in the genitive because its neighbor is in the genitive. If the neighbor is satisfied, does the neighbor remain hungry? Is that not so? If one puts a word in the genitive, does it leave its neighbor? No, it puts it in the genitive with it to support it in this. They said, and from this is the saying of the Arabs: "This is the burrow of a ruined adder." Is the word "ruined" (kharab) a description of the burrow or the adder?

The questioner : It is a description of the burrow.

The Shaykh : And is the burrow in the nominative or genitive case? "This is the burrow of a ruined adder." Do you understand? It is a description of the burrow. The rules would dictate saying "This is a burrow of an adder, ruined" (with "ruined" in the nominative), because the description of the burrow and the description of the nominative is nominative. But the Arabs pronounced it "ruined" (kharabin) in the genitive. How did they say it? By way of proximity, because when it was adjacent to the genitive, it was put in the genitive like it. So this, when it was adjacent to the genitive, was conjoined to it in the genitive following it in wording, while differing from it in ruling. This is one way. The second way, they said, is that Allah, Glorified and Exalted, said in the accusative case, which indicates that it is obligatory to wash the feet according to this reading. And "your feet" (arjilikum) in the genitive case means make your washing of them like wiping, so that it does not become a washing that tires you out. Because a person, by custom, may increase in washing the feet and rubbing them, since they are what come into contact with dirt. So custom would dictate increasing in their washing. So Allah, the Exalted, said until when washing and wiping meet, one does not exaggerate in the washing, to counter what custom dictates of exaggeration in washing. So the intent of the genitive case, which appears to mean wiping, is to break what people are accustomed to, which is exaggeration in washing the feet, because they are what encounter dirt. This is another way. The third way, they say, is that the two readings are applied to each of the two states of the feet, and the Sunnah clarifies this. The feet have two states: a state in which they are uncovered, and a state in which they are covered by leather socks. If they are uncovered, the obligation is to wash them. If they are covered by leather socks, the obligation is to wipe them. So the two readings are applied to the two states of the feet, and the Sunnah clarifies this. And this opinion is the most correct of the ways and the least strained, and it is consistent with the rules and with what is known from the Book of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, where each reading is applied to a meaning that suits it, and the two meanings meet or are similar. So the correct view is that the genitive reading is applied to when the feet are wiped, and the feet are not wiped unless they are covered. And the accusative reading is applied to when the feet are uncovered, and at that time it is obligatory to wash them. And this is the best and most correct of the ways. And on this basis, the verse contains evidence for the permissibility of wiping over leather socks. The Rafidah, may Allah humble them, went against the people of the Sunnah regarding this limb in three ways. They said the intended meaning of the ankles is the two prominent bones on the top of the foot. Where are they, O Abd al-Rahman? Yes, between the lower leg and the big toe. They said this because Allah said And if the intended meaning of the ankles were the two prominent bones at the bottom of the lower leg, He would have said "to the ankles" (ila al-ka'ab) because there are four of them. They also said that the feet are wiped, wiped up to the ankle. This is what they interpreted. This ankle, you know it, Abd al-Rahman. He did not stand up to show us, so I think his neighbor, Abd al-Rahman, did not see it. They also said that the feet are not washed, but only wiped, taking the genitive reading and neglecting the second reading. They also said that it is not permissible to wipe over leather socks, even though the hadiths regarding this have been mass-transmitted from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).