Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "covering the obligatory part."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : I am of the opinion that these bags used to carry bread and the like, in my view, are made of plastic and the like.
The questioner : Yes, made of plastic.
The questioner : Is the plastic hard and the nylon light?
The Shaykh : Okay, I am now saying that the plastic is this type of bag in which you put the bread. Well, I do not know this for sure. In any case, the thing that reveals the skin, like plastic, or whatever you call it, the important thing is the nylon.
The questioner : Like this bag.
The Shaykh : Yes, but it is white; some of it is white like glass. But I have switched to glass, even though the jurists used it as an example, because now we have this plastic which suffices for it, and it is possible to walk in it, whereas walking in glass may not be possible. In any case, it is not permissible to wipe over it because it reveals the skin. The second condition is that it must cover the obligatory part such that it is not light, i.e., thin. If it is light and the skin is visible through it, wiping over it is not valid because it does not cover the obligatory part. The third condition is that it must not have holes, because if it has a hole, the obligatory part becomes visible through it, and wiping over it is not valid. Some scholars, and this is the well-known view in the school of thought, said that if this hole is the size of the head of a reed, wiping over it is not valid. We must look at what the evidence is for this issue. They say that the evidence for what is light or has holes is that its obligatory part for washing becomes apparent, and washing does not combine with wiping, because washing and wiping do not occur on one limb. Do you understand, people? As for what reveals the skin due to its transparency, they said that covering is a condition, and this is not covering. The proof is that if a person prays in a garment that reveals the skin due to its transparency, his prayer is not valid because he did not cover himself. This is the reasoning. The Shafi'is held that wiping over what does not cover due to its transparency is permissible, because the place of the obligation is covered, and water cannot reach it. The fact that the skin is visible through it is not an 'awrah (part of the body that must be covered) that must be covered, so we do not say that wiping over what reveals the skin is not valid. There is not a single word in the Sunnah indicating that covering the foot with a leather sock is a condition. As long as it is not in the Sunnah, and the foot is not an 'awrah that must be covered, then what does not cover due to its transparency does not prevent wiping over it, or does not make wiping over it impermissible. This is undoubtedly a good reasoning from the Shafi'is. Some scholars said that this is not a condition at all; this condition is dropped, so it is not required that it cover the obligatory part. They cited as evidence that the texts regarding the permissibility of wiping over leather socks are general, and what is general must remain general. Whoever adds another condition to it must provide evidence, otherwise we must keep general what Allah and His Messenger made general, and restrict what Allah and His Messenger restricted. Also, many of the Companions were poor, and most poor people's leather socks are not free of holes. If this was common among a group in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), or if it was frequent even if not common, and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not point it out, that indicates that it is not a condition. This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, that it is not required that it cover the obligatory part. First, because there is no evidence for it, and the texts are general, so we must keep general what Allah and His Messenger made general. Second, many of the Companions were poor, and most poor people's leather socks usually have holes. If this existed in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and he did not point it out, it indicates that it is not a condition. Now we must respond to their reasoning. We say that your statement that "its obligatory part for washing became apparent, so it does not combine with wiping" is based on your claim that covering the obligatory part is necessary. You argued with a claim against the claimant, meaning you brought a proof that is based on your choice. How can you argue for an issue with a ruling that you built on this matter? So, who says that "its obligatory part for washing became apparent"? This leather sock came in accordance with what the Sunnah made general. If it came in accordance with what the Sunnah made general, then who says that if it comes off from the foot, even by the size of a grain, its obligatory part is washing? Rather, we say that this follows the leather sock and is wiped over. As for your statement that wiping and washing do not occur on one limb, this is refuted. If, for example, a cast is on the arm, on half the arm, wiping and washing occur on it: wiping over the cast and washing on what is not a cast. So, assuming that everything must be covered, we say that what is apparent is washed, and what is covered by the leather sock is wiped, like the cast. This is on the assumption that what is apparent has washing as its obligation, but we do not accept this, because we say that your statement that "what is apparent has washing as its obligation" is based on the condition that it must cover the obligatory part. And this is what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah held, and it is the stronger position, because these things are usually not free of holes. If they are not free of holes, how do we burden people and make things difficult for them? Also, in our time, there are very thin socks, very thin stockings, used by many people, and they consider it beneficial for the foot. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sent out a military expedition and ordered them to wipe over the headbands and the warmers. The warmers are leather socks because they warm the foot, and warming the foot is achieved by such leather socks or such stockings. If this condition is a matter of disagreement among scholars.
The questioner : Yes, made of plastic.
The questioner : Is the plastic hard and the nylon light?
The Shaykh : Okay, I am now saying that the plastic is this type of bag in which you put the bread. Well, I do not know this for sure. In any case, the thing that reveals the skin, like plastic, or whatever you call it, the important thing is the nylon.
The questioner : Like this bag.
The Shaykh : Yes, but it is white; some of it is white like glass. But I have switched to glass, even though the jurists used it as an example, because now we have this plastic which suffices for it, and it is possible to walk in it, whereas walking in glass may not be possible. In any case, it is not permissible to wipe over it because it reveals the skin. The second condition is that it must cover the obligatory part such that it is not light, i.e., thin. If it is light and the skin is visible through it, wiping over it is not valid because it does not cover the obligatory part. The third condition is that it must not have holes, because if it has a hole, the obligatory part becomes visible through it, and wiping over it is not valid. Some scholars, and this is the well-known view in the school of thought, said that if this hole is the size of the head of a reed, wiping over it is not valid. We must look at what the evidence is for this issue. They say that the evidence for what is light or has holes is that its obligatory part for washing becomes apparent, and washing does not combine with wiping, because washing and wiping do not occur on one limb. Do you understand, people? As for what reveals the skin due to its transparency, they said that covering is a condition, and this is not covering. The proof is that if a person prays in a garment that reveals the skin due to its transparency, his prayer is not valid because he did not cover himself. This is the reasoning. The Shafi'is held that wiping over what does not cover due to its transparency is permissible, because the place of the obligation is covered, and water cannot reach it. The fact that the skin is visible through it is not an 'awrah (part of the body that must be covered) that must be covered, so we do not say that wiping over what reveals the skin is not valid. There is not a single word in the Sunnah indicating that covering the foot with a leather sock is a condition. As long as it is not in the Sunnah, and the foot is not an 'awrah that must be covered, then what does not cover due to its transparency does not prevent wiping over it, or does not make wiping over it impermissible. This is undoubtedly a good reasoning from the Shafi'is. Some scholars said that this is not a condition at all; this condition is dropped, so it is not required that it cover the obligatory part. They cited as evidence that the texts regarding the permissibility of wiping over leather socks are general, and what is general must remain general. Whoever adds another condition to it must provide evidence, otherwise we must keep general what Allah and His Messenger made general, and restrict what Allah and His Messenger restricted. Also, many of the Companions were poor, and most poor people's leather socks are not free of holes. If this was common among a group in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), or if it was frequent even if not common, and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not point it out, that indicates that it is not a condition. This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, that it is not required that it cover the obligatory part. First, because there is no evidence for it, and the texts are general, so we must keep general what Allah and His Messenger made general. Second, many of the Companions were poor, and most poor people's leather socks usually have holes. If this existed in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and he did not point it out, it indicates that it is not a condition. Now we must respond to their reasoning. We say that your statement that "its obligatory part for washing became apparent, so it does not combine with wiping" is based on your claim that covering the obligatory part is necessary. You argued with a claim against the claimant, meaning you brought a proof that is based on your choice. How can you argue for an issue with a ruling that you built on this matter? So, who says that "its obligatory part for washing became apparent"? This leather sock came in accordance with what the Sunnah made general. If it came in accordance with what the Sunnah made general, then who says that if it comes off from the foot, even by the size of a grain, its obligatory part is washing? Rather, we say that this follows the leather sock and is wiped over. As for your statement that wiping and washing do not occur on one limb, this is refuted. If, for example, a cast is on the arm, on half the arm, wiping and washing occur on it: wiping over the cast and washing on what is not a cast. So, assuming that everything must be covered, we say that what is apparent is washed, and what is covered by the leather sock is wiped, like the cast. This is on the assumption that what is apparent has washing as its obligation, but we do not accept this, because we say that your statement that "what is apparent has washing as its obligation" is based on the condition that it must cover the obligatory part. And this is what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah held, and it is the stronger position, because these things are usually not free of holes. If they are not free of holes, how do we burden people and make things difficult for them? Also, in our time, there are very thin socks, very thin stockings, used by many people, and they consider it beneficial for the foot. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sent out a military expedition and ordered them to wipe over the headbands and the warmers. The warmers are leather socks because they warm the foot, and warming the foot is achieved by such leather socks or such stockings. If this condition is a matter of disagreement among scholars.