| Posted By |
Topic: ANKLE SOCKS: You may not wipe over ankle socks no matter what material they are made of !
|
|
 Moosaa
|
|
|
|
Abul-'Abbaas Moosaa ibn John Richardson
(Jeddah, Saudi Arabia)
|
|
Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sep 2002
|
In the Name of Allaah, the Most Merciful...
An honored guest reminded me today that our brothers need to be clear on the issue of ankle socks and the ruling on wiping over them for wudhoo', since it is an issue that many people may not know about.
Ankle socks: very short socks usually worn with low top sports shoes, they usually do not cover the ankle.
Ankle socks that do not cover the ankle bone entirely do not fit the criteria of a "khuff", and thus it is not permissible to wipe over them for wudhoo'. Thus, wiping over ankle socks (that do not cover the ankle) is INVALID, and the wudhoo' is incomplete and thus invalid as well.
Our shaykh, Dr. Saalih al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) said:
 | quote: |
| "...And it is a condition (for the validity of wiping over the footwear) that the footwear cover the foot. He may not wipe over footwear that is not sufficiently covering what he is required to wash (i.e. the entire foot, top and bottom, including the ankles), like footwear that is below the ankle, or footwear that is big enough, but does not properly cover the foot because it is too thin, like a thin nylon sock. None of these things may be wiped over since they do not adequately cover (the foot)..." |
|
Source: al-Mulakh-khas al-Fiqhee (1/42)
Moosaa ibn John Richardson
********************
|
|
| Moosaa
|
|
|
|
Abul-'Abbaas Moosaa ibn John Richardson
(Jeddah, Saudi Arabia)
|
|
Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sep 2002
|
It seems I was mistaken in my understanding of an "ankle sock":
| quote: |
The one that covers the ankle is called an ankle sock.
The one that doesnt is called a low-cut ankle sock. |
|
However, the explanation of the issue above is still accurate, so long as the reader applies it to low-cut ankle socks (that do not cover the ankle). And Allaah knows best.
I wish the moderators (may Allaah bless them) could change the title of this thread to:
LOW-CUT ANKLE SOCKS: You may not wipe over them no matter what material they are made of!
Moosaa ibn John Richardson
********************
|
|
| ummmusa88
|
|
|
|
Umm Musa bint Muhammad
(New York)
|
|
Member
Posts: 260
Joined: Sep 2008
|
asalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh,
i wanted to share this benefit with everyone inshaAllah, from our shaykh
al-albaani rahimuhullah:
---
Wiping over khuffs or socks that have holes in them:
As for wiping over khuffs (leather socks) or socks that are torn with
holes, then the scholars have differed in this issue with many opinions.
The majority of them forbid it based on a long differing amongst them,
which you can see in the detailed discussions found in the books of Fiqh
and Al-Muhallaa. Other scholars held the opinion that it was permissible,
and this is the opinion that we favor. Our argument for this is that: the
source principle is the (absolute) allowance for wiping. So whoever forbids
it, or places a condition on it - such as that they must be void of any
holes - or he places limits to it, then he is refuted by the statement of
the Prophet:
"Every condition that is not found in the Book of Allaah, then it is
false." [Al-Bukhaaree and Muslim]
It has also been authentically reported that Sufyaan Ath-Thawree
(rahimahullaah) said: "Wipe over them (the socks) so long as they are
attached to your feet. Were the socks of the Muhaajireen and the Ansaar
anything but torn (with holes), ripped and tattered?" [Reported by 'Abd-ur-
Razzaaq in Al-Musannaf (no.753 ) and from that path of narration, by Al-
Bayhaqee (1/283)]
Ibn Hazm (rahimahullaah) said:
"So if there is found in the khuffs, or whatever is worn on the feet, any
holes that are small or large, long or wide, such that some part of the
foot is visible, whether a little or a lot, or both, then all of that is
the same. And wiping over them is permissible, so long as any part of it
continues to attach itself to the feet. This is the opinion of Sufyaan Ath-
Thawree, Dawood, Abu Thawr, Ishaaq Ibn Raahawaih and Yazeed Ibn Haaroon."
[Al-Muhallaa (2/100)]
Then he (rahimahullaah) goes on to relate the statements of the scholars
that forbid it, according to what they contain from differing and
contradiction. And then he goes on to refute them and explain that it is an
opinion that has no evidence to support it except opinion. Then he closed
that with his statement:
"However the truth in this matter is what is reported in the Sunnah, which
explains the Qur'aan, in that the ruling for the two feet, which do not
have any garment over them to wipe over, is that they must be washed. And
the ruling for the two, if there is a garment over them, is that they can
be wiped over. This is what is reported in the Sunnah 'and your Lord is not
forgetful.' [Surah Maryan:64 ] The Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) knew, when he commanded
for the wiping over the khuffs or whatever is worn on the feet - and he
wiped over the socks - that there was large and small holes, as well as no
holes, in the shoes, socks and whatever else is worn on the feet. And he
(sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) also knew that there existed the footwear that was red, black or
white as well as the new and the old. But he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did not specify some of
it over another. And if the ruling for that in the Religion varied, then
Allaah would not have forgotten to send down revelation concerning it, nor
would the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) have neglected explaining it, far is
he removed from that. Thus, it is correct that the ruling for this wiping
applies to all conditions." [Al-Muhallaa (2/100)]
Also, Shaikh- ul-Islaam Ibn Taimiyyah (rahimahullaah) said in his
Ikhtiyaaraat (pg.13 ):
"It is permissible to wipe over the (foot) garments on one of its two sides
- Ibn Tameem and others related this. It is also permissible to wipe over
the khuff that has holes in it, so long as it continues to hold that name
(khuff) and one is able to walk in it. This is the older of the two
opinions Ash- Shaafi'ee held on it, and it is that which Abul-Barakaat and
other scholars have preferred."
I say: Ar-Raafi'ee attributed this view in Sharh Al-Wajeez (2/370) to the
majority of the scholars and uses as a support for it, his argument that
the opinion that forbids wiping over them, narrows the door of this
allowance, so one must wipe. And he was correct, may Allaah have mercy on
him.
---
and also, there is apparently a difference of opinion on the issue of
wiping over footwear below or above the ankles, as Ibn Hazm
(rahimahullaah) said in Al-Muhallaa (2/103):
"So if the footwear (khuff) are cut so that they fall beneath the ankles,
then wiping over them is permissible. This is the opinion of Al- Awzaa'ee
and it has been reported on him that he said: 'The muhrim may wipe over his
shoes that come beneath the ankles...' Others have stated: 'He may not wipe
over them unless they go over the ankles.'"
|
|
| zaahir.abd
|
|
|
|
Zaahir bin Hernandez
(Newark,N.J.(Amreekaa))
|
|
Member
Posts: 187
Joined: Nov 2002
|
As salaamu 'alaikum wa rahmatullaah,
Yah Abal-'Abbaas,
Can you add to this thread the "Wiping over Shoes or Sneakers"?
What I mean is many of us pray at work and the like. So here is an example:
Some one makes wudhoo in the morning, puts his Socks on (which are above the ankle bone) and then puts on his shoes(still with his wudhoo). During work he breaks his wudhoo. Can he wipe over his shoes if the shoes are not above his ankle or do the shoes have to also be above the ankle bone?
May Allaah increase you and us in beneficial knowledge and righteous actions.
Aameen.
السلام عليكم ورحمةالله
ابوعبدالرحمن زاهر
سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك
أشهد أن لا إله إلا أنت
أستغفرك وأتوب إليك
|
|
|
04-09-2009 @ 7:28 PM
06-10-2009 @ 9:23 PM