Topic: NEW SERIES: Wiping on the Socks, Shoes, Bandages & Turbans during the Wudoo

zaeem.sivardeen    -- 15-07-2004 @ 5:46 AM
  Indeed all praises are for Allaah, may His Salaah and Salaams be upon His Messenger, and upon his Family and Companions.

The following are some valuable rulings concerning wiping on the socks, turbans and bandages during the Wudoo. I have chosen two sources for this. The main one is a small book written by the Imaam, the Aalim Rabbaanee Muhammad bin Saalih al-Uthaymmen (Rahimahullaah). The second one consists of extracts from Tammaam al-Minnah, written by the Imaam, the Muhaddith Muhammad Nassir-ud-Deen al-Albaanee (Rahimahullaah).

I completed the translation of the first on 29/8/99, and the translation of the second on 26/9/99. I then reviewed them before sending them now.

The importance of the topic should be clear to any Muslim, for at least two reasons.
1.     This issue allows ease to the Muslim in his everyday life.
2.     This issue is such an important matter, that Ahl us-Sunnah has included it in their books of ?Aqeedah.

I do not know if anyone has already printed some of this material, but even if it does exist somewhere, then indeed reminding benefits the believers.

Aboo ?Abdillaah Za?eem Sivardeen
Wednesday 26/5/25 ? 14/7/04
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia


Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih al-?Uthaymeen (Rahimahullaah)


All praises are for Allaah, Lord of the worlds, and I send Salaah and Salaams upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, Companions and those who follow them upon goodness up to the Day of Judgement.

Then to proceed with the book, I have given the answers to the following questions that where posed to me concerning the issue of wiping of the Khuff-s, Imaamah-s and Jabeerah-s and they correspond to the answers already given by me on tape and I have incorporated some simple refinements. I also permit this to be printed by anyone who wishes to do so as long as he is meticulous in being authentic, and I do not reserve the printing rights for myself or anyone else.

I ask Allaah to grant Tawfeeq and Qubool to everyone, and to make them accept, this being said by the author Muhammad as-Saalih al-Uthaymeen on 19/5/1410H.


Q1.      What is meant by ?Khuff-s? and ?Jawrab-s??
A1.     All praises are for Allaah the Lord of the Worlds and I send the Salaah and Salaams upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family and all of his companions.

The meaning of the Khuff-s is whatever clothes the foot, being made of leather or the like.

The meaning of the Jawrab-s is whatever clothes the foot being made of cotton and the like, they being know as Shurraab ? i.e. socks and stockings.

Q2.     What is ruling concerning wiping on the Khuff-s and Jawrab-s, and what is the Sharee?ah proof from the Quraan and Sunnah for that ruling?

A2.     Wiping on these two is the Sunnah that has come from Allaah?s Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam). Concerning one who has worn these two, then the situation is such that wiping on them is better than taking them off in order to wash the foot.

The proof for this is the Hadeeth of al-Mugheerah bin Shu?bah (Radiyallaahu ?anhu), that the Prophet (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) did Wudoo and then al-Mugheerah said: So I bent over to remove his two Khuff-s, but he said: ?Leave them because indeed I had put two purified [feet] into them.? Then he wiped on them both. [Related by Muslim ? Imaam Nawawee?s explanation - 3/146].

The fact that wiping on the Khuff-s is a part of the Sharee?ah is established in the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam).

One proof from the Book of Allaah is the Saying of Him the Most High: [its translated meaning] ?O you who believe! When you intend to offer Salaah, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows and wipe your heads and your feet up to the ankles.? [Soorah al-Maa-idah 5:6]. So indeed the Saying of Him the Most High ?and your feet? has two ways of recitation according to the seven correct forms of recitation that have been related from Allaah?s Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam). One of these two is that ?and your feet? is connected to ?and your faces? being an object of ?wash?, and so the two feet are to be washed.

The second way is that ?and your feet? is connected to ?and your heads? being an object of ?and wipe?. Hence the two feet are to be wiped. What is apparent is that the foot being wiped or washed is the Sunnah. Hence the Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) used to wash his feet whenever they were uncovered and used to wipe them whenever they were covered by Khuff-s.

Then in the Sunnah, there are Mutawaatir proofs for this from Allaah?s Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam). Imaam Ahmad ? may Allaah have mercy on him ? said: There is nothing whatsoever in my heart concerning wiping. There are forty Hadeeth-s from Allaah?s Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) and his Companions concerning the issue. From poetry, the following verses of the poet can be mentioned:

Among the matters that are Tawaatur, is the Hadeeth of the one who has lied [i.e. upon the Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam)],
And the one who has built a house for Allaah to have hope in,
And the vision of the Intercession and the Pond
And wiping on two Khuff-s ? and these are [just] some.

Hence this is the proof for wiping on them, taken from the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam).

Q3.     What are the authentically established conditions for wiping on the Khuff-s and what are the proofs for these?

A3.     There are four conditions for wiping on the Khuff-s.

The first condition is that one wears the Khuff-s while being purified. The proof of this is what the Prophet (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) said to al-Mugheerah ibn Shu?bah (Radiyallaahu ?anhu) ?Leave them because indeed I entered two purified [feet] into them?.

The second condition is that the Khuff-s and Jawrab-s are themselves clean, for if they are unclean, wiping on them would not be permitted. The proof for this is that Allaah?s Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) led his Companions in prayer while wearing two sandals. He then took them off during his prayer as Jibreel had informed him there was something harmful or filthy on them both. [Sunan Abee Dawood, with Imaam Al-Albaanee?s checking, No. 650]. This shows that the prayer is not permitted when there is impurity [Najaasah] present, because when impurity is present, the one who wipes on it with water will himself get soiled by the impurity. Hence it is not correct that he is purified.

The third condition is that wiping can be done when one is in a state of minor impurity, and not in a state of major impurity [Janaabah], or when one needs to have a full bath [Ghusl]. The proof of this is the Hadeeth of Safwan bin ?Assaal (Radiyallaahu ?anhu) who said: Allaah?s Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) ordered us that when we were on a journey we should not take off our Khuff-s for three days and their nights, except when one of us is in a state of Janaabah, and instead due to defecation, urine and sleep. [Sunan at-Tirmidhee, with Imaam Al-Albaanee?s checking, No. 3535]. Hence wiping is applicable in a state of minor impurity but not permitted when in a state of major impurity, due to this Hadeeth we have quoted.

The fourth condition is that wiping is to be done within the time limit prescribed by the Sharee?ah, which is a day and a night for a resident, or three days and their nights for a traveller. The proof of this is the Hadeeth of Alee bin Abee Taalib (Radiyallaahu ?anhu) who said: The Prophet (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) made the time limit with respect to wiping on the Khuff-s, one day and a night for the resident and three days and their nights for a traveller. [Related by Muslim ? Imaam Nawawee?s explanation - 3/150].

This period begins at the first time wiping is done after one enters a state of impurity, and it ends 24 hours after that, for the one who is resident, or 72 hours after that, for a traveller.

Hence if we consider a person who purifies himself for the Fajr prayer on Tuesday and remains in a state of purification until he prays the 'Ishaa prayer on Wednesday night [i.e. Tuesday night ? the night before the day of Wednesday] and then he sleeps. Then he wakes up for the Fajr Prayer on Wednesday and wipes at 5am. So now the time he has in which he can wipe is from 5am Wednesday morning to 5am Thursday morning.

If we now consider that he wipes just before 5am Thursday morning and so he can pray the Fajr prayer that Thursday morning via this wiping, and also any other prayer as long as he remains upon this state of purity. This is because the Wudoo does not expire with the expiry of this time limit according to the correct opinion given by the people of knowledge.

The reason for this is that Allaah?s Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) did not limit the time limit for remaining in a state of purity, but instead limited the time for which wiping is allowed. Hence when the time limit has expired, one can no longer wipe, but one still remains in a state of purification, because this state of purification has been established by a proof from the Sharee?ah ? and what ever is established via a proof from the Sharee?ah can only be removed by way of another proof from the Sharee?ah. In this case there is no proof to say that the Wudoo expires when the time limit for wiping is complete. The principle is that what exists remains as it is until expiry becomes evident.

These are the conditions that need to be satisfied when wiping on the Khuff-s, and there are other conditions which some of the people of knowledge have mentioned. However some of these extra conditions need further consideration.

Q4.     How correct is the condition stipulated by some scholars that the Khuff-s should cover all gaps, holes and openings?

A4.     This condition is not correct because there is no proof for it. In such a case, the name of Khuff or Jawrab still applies to the footwear, so wiping is permitted as the Sunnah has come permitting wiping on the Khuff-s of any type, and the Lawgiver has left it unrestricted. Hence no one has the right to restrict it unless he has a text from the Lawgiver or a principle from the Sharee?ah that makes the restriction clear, and through which he can bear his argument. So it is permitted to wipe on the Khuff which is torn or has holes, and it is also permitted for a thin Khuff because it is not intended that the covering offered by the Khuff is to be like the covering of the skin. Instead, the intent of the Khuff is to provide warmth, comfort and benefit to the foot. Indeed the only reason why it has been made permitted to wipe on the Khuff is because removing it causes difficulty. This is the case - there being no difference be a thin Jawrab or a thick heavy Jawrab or whether it is a torn or intact Jawrab. The important thing is that as long as the name of the Khuff still applies to what is worn, then wiping on it is permitted.

Q5.     If a man does Tayammum and then puts on two Khuff-s, then is it permitted for him to wipe on them when he finds water, knowing that he had put them on while being purified.

A5.     It is not permitted to wipe on the two Khuff-s when the purification is that of Tayammum. This is due to his words (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) ?Indeed I entered into them two purified [feet].? However the purification of Tayammum is not associated with the feet, but is instead associated with the face and palms only. Accordingly, when there is a person who does not have water, or is ill and is not able to use water during Wudoo, then he puts on the Khuff-s even though he is not upon purification, they remain on him for an unlimited time until he finds water - if previously he did not have water ? or up until he his cured from his illness ? if previously he was ill. All this is because the foot is not associated with the purification of Tayammum.

Q6.     Is the intention obligatory ? meaning when one wants to wear socks or shoes ? does one have to have the intention that one will wipe on them? Similarly is there an intention that one wipes being a resident, or that one wipes being a traveller, or is this not obligatory?

A6.     The intention here is not obligatory because there is an action whose ruling is connected to its very existence and so it does not need an intention. This is just like if one wears a Thawb ? one is not required to have an intention that by it one is covering his ?Awrah in the Salaah, for instance. Hence it is not a prerequisite when wearing the Khuff-s to have the intention that one will be wiping on them and so there is no intention for that period of the wiping. Instead if one is a traveller, one can wipe for three days whether one intended that or not, and if one is a resident, one can wipe for a day and night, whether one intended that or not.

Q7.     What is the distance or journey that permits wiping on the Khuff-s for three days and their nights?

A7.     The journeys that allow the Salaah to be shortened is the journey that allows the period of wiping to be three days and their nights. This is due to the Hadeeth of Safwaan bin ?Assaal which we have mentioned, where he said: ?When we were on a journey?? So as long a person is on a journey that allows him to shorten the Salaah, then he can wipe for three days.

Q8.     If a traveller arrives or else a resident travels while he has begun the wiping, how does he calculate the period he has to wipe?

A8.     The stronger opinion is that if a person wipes while being resident and then travels he should complete the wiping as a traveller.

If he is a traveller and then arrives, he should complete his wiping as a resident. This is the stronger opinion. Some of the people of knowledge have mentioned that if he wipes while in a civilised area and then he travels then he should complete the wiping as a resident. However what we have said first is stronger because this man had remained for some time in the period of his wiping before he travelled and [then] he travelled. Hence it applies to him that he is a traveller who can wipe for three days.

[To be continued In Shaa-Allaah]

Abu 'Abdillaah Zaeem Sivardeen
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia  

zaeem.sivardeen    -- 24-07-2004 @ 8:37 PM

Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih al-?Uthaymeen (Rahimahullaah)


Q9.     If a person doubted concerning the beginning of the wiping and its time, what should he do?

A9.     In this situation, he should act upon what he is certain about. So if he is unsure if he wiped for Dhuhr Salaah or ?Asr Salaah then he should assume that the period begins with the ?Asr Salaah. This is because the principle is that one has not wiped, and so proving the wiping is the rule. It is also the principle that a matter remains as it is, and the principle is that the wiping did not occur.

The Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) received a complaint from a man who felt that he noticed something during his Salaah. So he (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) said that he should not leave his Salaah unless he hears a sound or notices a smell.

Q10.     What is the ruling concerning the Salaah of a man who wipes after the end of the period of wiping and then prays?

A10.     If a person wipes after the end of the period for wiping ? be he a resident or a traveller ? then his prayer based on this type of purification, is null and void, because his Wudoo is null and void as the period for wiping had finished. Hence it is obligatory for him to do Wudoo completely afresh, washing his feet, and then he must re-pray all the prayers he performed using the Wudoo he performed by wiping [on the Khuff-s] after the period for wiping had expired.

Q11.     If a person removes his socks while having Wudoo and then he puts them on again, before losing his Wudoo, is it then permitted for him to wipe on them again?

A11.     Concerning a person who removes his socks and then puts them back on while still being in Wudoo, then if this was the first Wudoo ? i.e. his Wudoo did not expire after he had put on the socks ? then there is no harm on him if he puts them back on and wipes on them during any future Wudoo. However if his Wudoo was that performed by wiping on his socks, then it is not permitted to wipe on them again after taking them off and putting them back on. This is because there is no doubt that he put them on when purified with water, while this purification [here] is by wiping. This is known to be what the people of knowledge have said. However if someone does say that when he puts them back on whilst still being purified even if that was through wiping, then he can still wipe as long as the period for wiping remains, then this is a strong opinion. However I do not know that anyone has said this. Hence the only thing that prevents me from having this opinion is that I have not been informed that anyone has said it. So if a person of knowledge has said it then that would be correct as far as I am concerned, because the purification achieved via wiping is a complete form of purification, hence it is befitting that it is said that if one wipes on whatever one wears, while having the purification obtained by washing, then one can also wipe on whatever one wears while having the purification obtained by wiping. However I do not see anyone saying this.

Question: So we are not saying that removing the Khuff-s nullifies the wiping?

Answer: When one takes off the Khuff, is purification is not nullified but his ability to wipe is nullified. So if he goes back another time while his Wudoo has expired, then he must take the Khuff off and wash his feet. The important thing is that we know he definitely put on the Khuff while having purification obtained via washing, and included in that were his feet. This is according to what we know from the speech of the people of knowledge.

Q12.     A man wipes on his shoes the first time round and then the second time he takes them off and wipes on his socks. Is his wiping correct? Or else does he have to wash his feet?

A12.     There is difference of opinion concerning this. Some of the people of knowledge have the opinion that if one wipes one of the outer Khuff-s or the inner Khuff-s then the ruling is connected to that [which is wiped] and can not be transferred to the second.

Others from the people of knowledge have the opinion that transferring [the ruling] to the second is permitted, as long as the period of wiping remains. Hence, for instance, if one wipes on the shoes and then takes them off and wants to do Wudoo, then one would have to wipe on the Jawrab-s, which are the socks, according to the stronger opinion. This is just as when one wipes on the Jawrab-s and then wears another Jawrab on top, or else shoes, and then wipes on the outer one of these. Hence there is no problem with any of this according to the stronger opinion, as long as the period [for wiping] remains. However, this period is to be calculated according to when the first thing was wiped, and not according to the second.

Q13.     Often people ask about the correct manner of wiping and the place where the wiping is done.

A13.     The manner of wiping is that one passes one hand from the extremities of the toes to one?s shin [Saaq] ? and that is all - meaning that what is wiped is the top of the Khuff. Hence one passes one?s hand from the toes to the shin only. This wiping is done with both hands at the same time on the two feet at the same time. I.e. the right hand wipes the right foot and the left hand wipes the left foot, all at the same time, just as the ears are wiped [during the Wudoo]. This is what is apparent from the Sunnah, due to the saying of al-Mugheerah bin Shu?bah (Radiyallaahu ?anhu): ?So he wiped on them both.? Hence he did not say that he began with the right, rather he said: ?He wiped on them both.? Hence what is apparent from the Sunnah is this. Yes, and if it was obligatory that one of the hands was not to be used, then one would start with the right before the left.

Also many people wipe with both of their hands on the right foot and both the hands on the left foot.

This practise has no basis to my knowledge, and instead the scholars say that one should wipe with the right hand on the right foot, and with the left hand on the left foot.

Q14.     We have seen some people wiping the bottom and top [of the Khuff-s]. What is the ruling concerning the way they have wiped and concerning their prayer?

A14.     Their prayer is correct and their Wudoo is correct, but they should be made aware that wiping on the underside [of the Khuff-s] is not from the Sunnah, for the Sunnah contains the Hadeeth of ?Alee bin Abee Taalib (Radiyallaahu ?anhu) who said: If the Deen was according to the intellectual opinions, then it would be more appropriate to wipe on the underside of the Khuff instead of the top. However I saw the Prophet (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) wipe the outside of his Khuff. [Sunan Abee Dawood, with Imaam Al-Albaanee?s checking, No. 162]. Hence this shows that it is only legislated to wipe on the top.

Q15.     How do we address the saying of Ibn ?Abbaas (Radiyallaahu ?anhumaa): The Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) did not wipe after [the revelation of Soorah] al-Maa-idah? And also what about that which is related from ?Alee, that the Book has left behind [i.e. the wiping of] the Khuff-s?

A15.     I do not know if these are authentically related from these companions or not. I mentioned before this, that ?Alee bin Abee Taalib (Radiyallaahu ?anhu) is one of those who narrated Hadeeth-s concerning how Allaah?s Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) performed the wiping, and he narrated these after his death, and he explained that the Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) gave a time limit for the wiping. All this show that the ruling [for the wiping on the Khuff-s] was established as far as he was concerned, even after the death of Allaah?s Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) ? and after the death of Allaah?s Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) abrogation cannot be possible.

Q16.     Do the rulings concerning wiping on the Khuff-s apply to women in the same way they apply to men or is there a difference in this?

A16.     There is no difference between the men and the women concerning this matter. It is desirable that you know a rule, which is the principle that what ever is established with respect to the men, also is established with respect to the women and vice versa, unless there is a proof that shows that their rulings are different.

Q17.     What is the ruling concerning taking off the socks or a part of them, in order to scratch some of the foot or in order to remove something from the foot such as a small stone or the like?

A17.     There is no harm in putting one?s hand under the Jawrab, however if one removes them, then some further consideration is needed. Hence if one removes a small part, then there will be no harm. However if one takes off a large amount such that most of the foot is exposed, then that would nullify his allowance to wipe on them in the future.

Q18.     It is well know amongst the general masses that they wipe on the Khuff-s for five prayers only and then they renew their wiping another time.

A18.     Yes, this is what is common amongst the common masses, that wiping for one day and a night, means that one can only wipe for five prayers. This is not correct. Instead the time limit of a day and a night means that one can wipe for a day and a night, whether one prays five prayers or more than that. This period begins, as has preceded, with the first wipe. Hence perhaps a person can then pray ten or more prayers. Hence if a person puts on the Khuff for the Fajr Salaah on Monday, and remains upon purification until he sleeps on Tuesday night [i.e. Monday night ? the night before the day of Tuesday] and then he wipes on the Khuff for the first time for Fajr Salaah on Tuesday, then here he can continue to wipe until Fajr Salaah on Wednesday. Hence here he can pray while wearing the Khuff for Fajr, Dhuhr, ?Asr, Maghrib and ?Ishaa on Monday, with all these prayers being prayed within a period which does not restrict the time for wiping because it is before the [first] wiping. Then he prays on Tuesday, the Fajr Salaah while having wiped, then Dhuhr, ?Asr, Maghrib and ?Ishaa ? all while having wiped on the Khuff. After this it is possible he wipes to pray [all the prayers of] Wednesday if he wipes before the period of wiping expires. Hence if he had first wiped for Fajr on Tuesday at 5am, and then his last wiping is 4:45am on Wednesday and then he remains upon purification until after he has prayed ?Ishaa Salaah on Thursday night [i.e. Wednesday night- the night before the day of Thursday], and so he has prayed with this Wudoo Fajr, Dhuhr, ?Asr, Maghrib and ?Ishaa on that Wednesday. Hence overall he has prayed 15 prayers since putting on [his socks].

All of this is because he put them on for Fajr Salaah on Monday and remained upon purification and only wiped for Fajr Salaah on Tuesday at 5am and then after that he wiped for the last time at 4:45am for Fajr Salaah on Wednesday and remained upon purification until after ?Ishaa prayer. Hence he prayed 15 prayers [after putting on the socks].

Q19.     If a person does Wudoo and then wipes on the Khuff-s and during the period of wiping he took off his Khuff-s, for instance, before ?Asr Salaah, then is his prayer correct, or has his Wudoo expired, with him taking off the Khuff-s.

A19.     The stronger opinion given by the people of knowledge and which has been adopted by Shaykh-ul-Islaam Ibn Taymeeyah and a group of the people of knowledge, is that the Wudoo does not expire when the Khuff is removed. Hence if a person takes off his Khuff while being upon purification, and while having wiped it, then indeed his Wudoo does not expire. This is because wiping on the Khuff-s completes the purification of the feet, being shown to be the case by way of the proof from the Sharee?ah. So if a person takes it off, then this purification that has been established from the proof from the Sharee?ah, can only be nullified by a proof from the Sharee?ah. However no proof exists indicating that wiped Khuff-s or Jawrab-s nullifies the Wudoo, so the Wudoo remains. However if one puts back on the Khuff-s, after that, then wants to wipe on it in future, then that is not permitted, according to what I know from the opinions of the people of knowledge.

[to be continued In Shaa-Allaah]

Abu 'Abdillaah Zaeem Sivardeen
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia  

zaeem.sivardeen    -- 26-07-2004 @ 6:31 PM

Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih al-?Uthaymeen (Rahimahullaah)



Q20.     Is it permitted to wipe on the ?Imaamah-s, and what are the limits of that, and what is the description of the ?Imaamah?

A20.     Wiping on the ?Imaamah is something that the Sunnah has brought from the Messenger (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam). Hence it is permitted to wipe on them, wiping on all or part, and it is also from the Sunnah to wipe whatever is exposed of the head, like the forelock, side of the head, and ears.

Q21.     Does the Shimaagh [like a Ghutrah ? the square cloth that is folded into a triangle and usually worn on the head of Saudi men] of a man, and the covering of the head of a woman, enter into what is know as the ?Imaamah?

A21.     The man?s Shimaagh and Taaqeeyah [the simple white cotton cap worn by most Muslims] certainly does not enter into what is meant by the word ?Imaamah. As for what is worn in winter, such as the complete hood that covers the head and ears, and that which is perhaps below it, being wrapped on the neck, then this is like the ?Imaamah because it is difficult to remove and so it may be wiped upon.

Concerning the women, then they can wipe on their Khimaar-s according to what is well known from the Madh-hab of Imaam Ahmad if they are made to go round under the neck, because that has been mentioned from some of the women companions (Radiyallaahu ?anhunna).

Q22.     Is it permitted to wipe on the Fez as it is on the head but not connected to the neck?

A22.     It is apparent that the Fez is not difficult to remove and so it is not permitted to wipe on it as it resembles the Taaqeeyah in some respects. All this is because, the principle is that one must wipe the head during Wudoo, unless it becomes clear that the item in question can be wiped instead.


Q23.     What is the ruling for wiping upon the Jabeerah and what is meant by that word? What proof is from the Book and the Sunnah that has ordained it?

A23.     Firstly we need to know what the Jabeerah is. The Jabeerah is in principle that which keeps a fracture or break straight. It is commonly used by the scholars of Fiqh to mean whatever is placed on a place of purification due to a need such as a plaster cast that is used for a fracture, or a sticky plaster that is used for a wound or lesion or on an ache or pain in the back, or whatever resembles that. For all of these wiping will suffice instead of washing. Hence if we suppose that a person doing Wudoo has a sticky plaster on a wound on his forearm, having this because he needs to, then he should wipe on it, instead of washing, and this purification would be complete. Then if he had to remove this Jabeerah or sticky plaster, his purification will remain and not expire because it is complete according to the Sharee?ah, and there is no proof that taking off the sticky plaster here, nullifies the Wudoo or the purification, and there is no penetrating proof that offers resistance with respect to the Jabeerah.

Concerning the Jabeerah, there are some weak Hadeeth-s which some of the people of knowledge use, saying, collected together they do raise up to be able to be used as a proof. Others say that because of their weakness they cannot be relied upon. And then these differ with some of them, saying that the purification is not needed in those areas, as it is not possible to purify them, while others from them say that Tayammum is needed and wiping is not to be done.

However the opinion that is closest to the principles such that remove the doubts from these Hadeeth-s concerning this topic, is that one should wipe. This wiping removes the need for doing Tayammum for there is no need of it. Hence we say that when a person has a wound on one of the limbs needing purification, it will be of a certain level [of severity].

The First Level is that it is uncovered and washing does not harm it. In this situation washing is obligatory.

The Second Level is that it is uncovered and washing does harm it while wiping does not. In this situation wiping is obligatory instead of washing.

The Third Level is that it is uncovered and both washing and wiping harms it, so here Tayammum is needed.

The Fourth Level is that it is covered by a sticky plaster or the like which is needed for it, and so in this situation, one wipes on this covering and that will remove the need to wash the limb.

Q24.     Are there conditions for wiping on the Jabeerah? For instance, in the case where it is in excess of what is actually needed.

A24.     The Jabeerah cannot be wiped upon unless it is actually needed. Hence it is obligatory to assess [the Jabeerah] according to its associated level of need. The need may not be restricted to the place of the pain or wound alone. Instead everywhere that it is needed to fix this Jabeerah or this sticky plaster, for instance, will be included as that which is needed.

Q25.     Do bandages such as white muslin cloth and other than that enter into the meaning of Jabeerah?

A25.     Yes they do enter into its meaning. It should then be made known that the Jabeerah is not like wiping on the Khuff-s in terms of the time limit for which wiping is allowed. Instead one can wipe on the Jabeerah as long as the need that called for the Jabeerah still exists. Also one can wipe on it in the case of minor impurity or major impurity, again being different to the Khuff-s as has preceded. Hence if Ghusl is needed, then one can wipe on it just as one would do so during Wudoo.

Q26.     How does one wipe on the Jabeerah? Does one wipe all of it in general or some of it in particular?

A26.     Yes all of it is to be generally wiped. This is because the replacement has the same ruling as that which it has replaced, unless the Sunnah refutes that with something different. Hence here wiping has replaced washing, and so just as it is obligatory to wash generally all of the limb, then so is the case for wiping- it is obligatory to generally wipe all the Jabeerah. As for wiping on the Khuff-s then this acts as a concession which is permitted and the Sunnah has come allowing it to be sufficient to wipe [just] a part of it [the Khuff] .

[to be continued In Shaa-Allaah]

Abu 'Abdillaah Zaeem Sivardeen
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia  

zaeem.sivardeen    -- 30-07-2004 @ 6:14 PM


Extracts from Tammaam al-Minnah (p. 112)

Imaam Naasir-ud-Deen al-Albaanee (Rahimahullaah)


Point 1.

Saabiq says under point 2 - : And it is from al-Mugheerah bin Shu?bah that Allaah?s Messenger (Sallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) performed Wudoo and wiped on the two Jawrab-s and sandals. Related by Ahmad, at-Tahaawee, Ibn Maajah and at-Tirmidhee, who said is was Hasan Saheeh while Aboo Dawood declared it to be Da?eef.

I [Imaam al-Albaanee] say: Aboo Daawood said in his ?Sunan? after quoting the Hadeeth:

?Abdur-Rahmaan bin Mahdee did not use to relate this Hadeeth because the well known narration from al-Mugheerah is that the Prophet (Sallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) wiped on the two Khuff-s.?

I say: So you see that the only reason Aboo Daawood declared it weak, was not due to a hidden defect in the Hadeeth?s chain, but instead was because it differed from what was well known from al-Mugheerah in terms of his (Sallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) wiping on the two Khuff-s. It will not be hidden from the intelligent person that this is not a hidden defect that degrades the authenticity of the Hadeeth, as establishing that he (Sallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) wiped on the Khuff-s does not necessarily disallow it being established that he wiped on the Jawrab-s and sandals. Hence when he has related this from al-Mugheerah reliably, it is obligatory to act upon it as nothing is present that contradicts what others relate from al-Mugheerah concerning wiping on the two Khuff-s.

The situations is that all of the narrators of this Hadeeth are Thiqah and its chain is Saheeh according to the conditions of al-Bukhaaree, and so the Shaykh Taqee ad-Deen Ibn Daqeeq al-?Eed has said in ?al-Imaam?: And those who grade  it to be Saheeh, depend after the Ta?deel of Aboo Qays (its narrator from Hudhayl) due to the fact that he does not contradict the narration used by the majority ? rather it is an additional matter to what they relate and it does not contradict it. This is especially so since it has an independent route via the narration of Hudhayl from al-Mugheerah which does not involve the Mash-hooraat in its chain.

Indeed this is the saying that is shown to be correct concerning the Hadeeth according to how the rules of the science of Hadeeth affect it. So do not be mislead by reports that some scholars did grade it to be Da?eef, for that grading is based upon a hidden defect that does not degrade it ? as we have explained. Whoever wishes to see more by way of explanation, may refer to Ustaadh Ahmad Muhammad Shaakir?s detailing of ?Sunan at-Tirmidhee? (2/167-8) and ?al-Irwaa? (101) and ?Saheeh Abee Daawood? (147 and 148).

Point 2.

Saabiq also said at the end of the previous Hadeeth: Wiping on the Jawrab-s is what is intended while wiping on the sandals follows on from that.

I say: This phrase gives the impression that wiping on the sandals is not permitted. In response to that, I would say:

It has been authentically  and independently related from him (Sallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) that he wiped on the sandals, without any mention of the Jawrab-s, by way of the Hadeeth of ?Alee bin Abee Taalib, Aws bin Abee Aws ath-Thaqafee and Ibn ?Umar, which Ibn al-Qattaan has declared Saheeh in ?Sharh ?Uloom al-Hadeeth? of al-?Iraaqee (p. 12), and I have spoken about its chains of narration in ?Saheeh Abee Daawood? (No. 150 and 156).

Hence these Hadeeth-s show that it is permitted to also wipe on the two sandals and this has been established from some of the Salaf as well, as will follow shortly. This also contains a clear proof that it is not a condition upon the Khuff that all its holes and gaps are covered, just as the author has related from Shaykh al-Islaam (p. 106).

Point 3.

Saabiq says: Wiping on the Khuff-s is made null and void by: 1. the expiry of the time period, 2. entering into a state of major impurity, 3. the removal of the Khuff.

I say: the proof for the second matter is the Hadeeth of Safwaan bin ?Assaal that has preceded in the book when discussing ?Those Matters that Nullify the Wudoo ? Deep Sleep.?

As for the first and third matters, then there is no proof for them at all. Hence Shaykh al-Islaam said in ?al-Ikhtiyaaraat? (p. 9 ): The Wudoo of someone who has wiped on the Khuff and ?Imaamah, is not made null and void by removing those items of clothing, nor is it made null and void when the time period has expired ? it is not obligatory to wipe on the head and wash the feet. This is the opinion held by al-Hasan al-Basree. The situation is just like when one removes [or cuts] one?s hair that had been wiped during the Wudoo, according to what is correct from the madh-hab of Ahmad and the opinion of the majority.

I say: What he has mentioned from al-Hasan al-Basree has been reported by al-Bukhaaree in Ta?leeq form in his ?Saheeh? (1/225) where he says: And al-Hasan said: If one removes one?s hair or else his nails, or takes off his two Khuff-s, then one does not need to repeat one?s Wudoo.

Al-Haafidh said: Concerning the first matter which has been narrated in Ta?leeq form, then Sa?eed bin Mansoor and Ibn al-Mundhir have brought it forth with a connected Saheeh chain. Concerning the second matter narrated in Ta?leeq form, then Ibn Abee Shaybah has brought it forth with a connected Saheeh chain. Ibraaheem an-Nakha?ee, Taawoos, Qataadah and ?Ataa agreed with that, and Sulaymaan bin Harb and Daawood used to give rulings to this effect.

I say: This is the position of ?Alee bin Abee Taalib as well, for al-Bayhaqee (1/288) and at-Tahaawee in ?Sharh al?Ma?aanee? (1/58) related from Aboo Thabyaan that he saw ?Alee (Radiyallaahu ?anhu) urinate while standing up, then he called for some water, performed Wudoo and wiped on his two sandals. Then he entered the mosque, removed his two sandals and then prayed. Al-Bayhaqee added: Then he led the people in prayer.

Both the chains are Saheeh according to the conditions stipulated by the two Shaykh-s.

It also contains a proof for wiping on the sandals ? and that has been authentically related from the Prophet (Sallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) in the previously mentioned Hadeeth-s.

[to be continued In Shaa-Allaah]

Abu 'Abdillaah Zaeem Sivardeen
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia  

zaeem.sivardeen    -- 04-08-2004 @ 6:39 AM


Extracts from Tammaam al-Minnah (p. 113)

Imaam Naasir-ud-Deen al-Albaanee (Rahimahullaah)


Point 1.

Saabiq said: Wiping on the Jabeerah and similar things that the limb of a sick person is fixed by, is prescribed due to the Hadeeth-s that exist concerning the matter. Even though they may be Da?eef, their routes strengthen each other making them correct to use as a proof to show that it is prescribed. One of these Hadeeth-s is the Hadeeth of Jaabir, that a man was struck by a rock and so he had a wound on his head?

I say:     In strengthening the Hadeeth, the Author has followed as-San?aanee, ash-Shawkaanee and others. While all of them have neglected the principle that I have quoted in ?The Introduction ? principle 10? which, in summary, is that a Hadeeth is not strengthened by many routes if the weakness in them is severe. This Hadeeth falls into this category, having four routes, and there is no harm in explaining their defects with summarisation:

1.     The Hadeeth of Jaabir that was mentioned in the Book. The part that needs support is his saying: ?and that he pressed on and wrapped around his wound?? and we have explained previously that this sentence is Munkar, so there is no need to repeat it.

[p. 131 under the section of Tayammum]:

Saabiq says, in order to use as a proof to use Tayammum for a wound or illness: This is due to the Hadeeth of Jaabir (Radiyallaahu ?anhu) who said: We went out on a journey, then one of us was struck by a rock, such that his head was wounded. Afterwards he had a wet dream, and so he asked his companions? He (Sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) said: ?They killed him, may Allaah kill them. Why did they not ask when they did not know. Indeed the cure for someone who is incapable, is to ask. Indeed it would have been sufficient for him to have performed Tayammum and then pressed or wrapped a piece of cloth on his wound and then wiped on it and then washed the rest of his body.? This was related by Aboo Daawood, Ibn Majah and ad-Daaraqutnee and Ibn As-Sakin declared it Saheeh.

I say: al-Bayhaqee, al-Asqalaanee and others have declared this Hadeeth Da?eef, however it has a support through the Hadeeth of Ibn ?Abbaas which raises it to the level of Hasan, but it does not contain his saying, ?and then pressed on ?.[etc.]? Hence this is a Da?eef Munkar addition because only the weak route contains it. Refer to ?at-Talkhees al-Habeer? (2/292 & 295) and ?Buloogh al-Maraam?.

From this it becomes clear that he has used this Hadeeth as a proof for what he himself has directed, differing to how he used it in the section ?Wiping on the Jabeerah?. An extra explanation will be made there.

[Back to p. 113 etc.]

2.     From ?Alee who said: I broke one of my forearms so I asked Allaah?s Messenger (Sallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam), so he ordered me to wipe on the Jabeerah-s.

al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr said in ?Buloogh al-Maraam?: Ibn Maajah related it with a very feeble chain.

The explainer of ?Buloogh al-Maraam?, as-San?aanee said: Yahyaa bin Ma?een, Ahmad and others declared the Hadeeth to be Munkar saying: This is because it is from the narration of ?Amr bin Khalid al-Waasitee, and he is a liar. Ad-Daaraqutnee and al-Bayhaqee relate it with routes that are even more feeble. An-Nawawee said: The Haafidh-s have agreed that this Hadeeth is weak. Ash-Shaafi?ee said: If I knew there was goodness in its chain, then I would quote it, however this is something I ask Allaah?s guidance about.

Ibn Abee Haatim said in ?al-?Ilal? from his father: This Hadeeth is Baatil, having no basis for it.

3.     From Aboo Umaamah, related by at-Tabaraanee in ?al-Mu?jam al-Kabeer? (8/154/7597) with his chain, and it has been quoted in ?Nasb ar-Raayah? (1/186). It contains Ishaaq bin Daawood as-Sawwaaf the Shaykh of at-Tabaraanee, concerning whom I could not find a biography. It also contains Hafs bin ?Umar, who is al-?Adanee, concerning whom an-Nisaa-ee said: He is not Thiqah.

4.     From Ibn ?Umar that the Prophet (Sallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) used to wipe on the Jabeerah-s. This is related by ad-Daaraqutnee who said Aboo ?Umaarah (meaning Muhammad bin Ahmad bin al-Mahdee ? one of the narrators) is very Da?eef, and this Hadeeth is not Saheeh as something Marfoo?.

Al-Bayhaqee related it (1/228) from Ibn ?Umar as a Mawqoof narration, from him with a Saheeh chain and then said: It is Saheeh from Ibn ?Umar.

Al-Bayhaqee said, after quoting the second Hadeeth by way of the first route and after pointing to its other routes, and pointing to the fact that all of them are weak: Nothing has been established concerning this matter, with the most authentic of what has been related, being the Hadeeth of ?Ataa bin Abee Rabaah, which has preceded i.e. the Hadeeth of Jaabir ? and he is not strong. Instead it contains the saying of the jurists from the Taabi?een and those who came after them along with what is related to us from Ibn ?Umar concerning wiping on the bandage.

I say: So you can see that al-Bayhaqee, in this matter, relied upon the saying of the jurists and the narration of Ibn ?Umar, that was previously pointed out, when dealing with this topic. If the Hadeeth was strong via these routes, al-Bayhaqee would have used it as a proof, because he is one of those who say that the Hadeeth is strengthened by its several routes, but he did not act upon this here, even though he needed the Hadeeth ? and that is because of the severity of the weakness of its chains, as we have explained.

As a result, Ibn Hazm held the view that wiping on the Jabeerah is not prescribed, saying (2/74-75): The proof of that is the Saying of Allaah the Most High [its translated meaning]: ?Allaah does not burden a soul with more than it can bear,? and the saying of Allaah?s Messenger (Sallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) ?When I order you with a matter then do it as much as you can.? Hence all those who are incapable have been overlooked by the Quraan and the Sunnah, and the replacement for them is in the Sharee?ah, and no prescription is binding unless it is from the Quraan or the Sunnah. Here the Quraan and the Sunnah have not ordained replacing the obligation to wash what one can not wash, with wiping on the Jabeerah and medication, because the Quraan and the Sunnah does not mention it.

Then he mentioned from ash-Sha?bee what agrees with his opinion and then the like of it from Daawood and his companions, and it is the truth In Shaa-Allaah.

In response to the previous narration of Ibn ?Umar [which is authentically related as his action], then that is his action (Radiyallaahu ?anhumaa) and it is not a positive decision in favour of wiping on Jabeerah-s. It is also authentically reported that he used to enter water into the depths of his eyes during Wudoo and Ghusl, while it is not prescribed in the Sharee?ah, never mind it being an obligation!

[End of Series - By the Tawfeeq and Permission of Allaah]

Abu 'Abdillaah Zaeem Sivardeen
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia  

umm.ridwan.bakr    -- 08-07-2005 @ 6:51 AM
  AS Salaamu alaikum wa Rahmatullah
May this note find you all clinging tightly to the Rope of Allah, ameen.

I would like to know the title and publisher of the book you translated by Shaykunaa Muhammad Saalih al-'Uthaymeen, rahimuhullah. Also, has this information been compiled into book form in the English language?

Jazakullah khairan. May Allah Azza wa Jal reward you greatly for your efforts, ameen.  

'Abdur Rahman ibn 'Amr al-'Awzaa'ee (rahimahullah), said, "Knowledge is what comes from the Companions of Muhammad (salla lahu alaihi wa sallam) and that which does not come from a single one of them is not knowledge."  Refer to Jaami 'Bayaanil-'Ilm

SalafiTalk.Net :