Wudu - Wiping over shoes?

[lumumba_s]

See post #58...

[shaad_lko]

Salam Lumumba,


if I may ask, what is your understanding of the words in Sura Waqia : لَّا يَمَسُّهُ إِلَّا الْمُطَهَّرُونَ


And to answer your prior post, I relied on an Urdu translation for al-Jaziri's opinion, and as for the rukhsa not being unconditional - yes that is true, but there is nothing explicit in the Sharia (except scholarly interpretation or assumption) to clearly define that feet must necessarily be washed prior to being permissible for masah. The hadith of Mughira rta, I believe you did partially quote it some pages back (it appears in Bukhari, Muslim and Ahmad) :


One night I was walking with the Prophet (sws). I poured water (on his hands) with a vessel and he washed his blessed face and arms and wiped his head. Then I bent down to take off his socks but he said : Leave them, I wore them when my feet were pure.


Another version reads:

Mughira ibn Shu’ba (r.a) related, ‘I was with the Prophet (s.a.w) one night while on a journey, he said to me, “Is there water with you?” I said, “Yes.” He descended from his ride (animal) and walked away until he hid in the darkeness of the night. Then he came and I poured for him water from the vessel (as he performed Wudu). He washed his face. He was wearing a woolen cloak and (tried to but) could not remove his forearms (from the sleeves) to wash them; so he removed them from the lower end of the Cloak and washed his forearms. He wiped over his head. Then I bent down to remove his Khuff and he said, “Leave them for I put them on while they (the two feet) were pure,” and then he wiped over them.’

[lumumba_s]

As salamu `alaykum,

1) The verse in Sura al-Waqia means that no human being can touch the Qur'an except those who are ritually pure, which is the basis for why there is ijma` among Sunni orthodoxy that no one can touch the Qur'an except someone in a state of ritual purity. Without ever referring to the relevant hadith declaring the same, Imam Malik reasoned that it clearly is a reference to human beings, as the entire series of verses in which that statement comes, is speaking to those of humanity that clearly witnessed the blessings and mercy of God in their lives, but insists in denying His favors upon them. It isn't talking about angels, it is talking about human beings, as as it is talking about human beings, it is talking about ritual purity and its lack thereof being a legal preventative to touching the Qur'an.

2) If you were reading the Urdu, then there was either a mistake in the translation to Urdu or you misunderstood what was being said because, not being intimately familiar with the Hanafi school, you did not understand issues underlying what al-Jaziri is speaking of. I spoke with a friend who has the original Arabic and she had a similar problem with this passage. She (being Maliki) found the passage peculiar until I explained something that was the unstated reasoning behind al-Jaziri's explanation. This is what the passage says,

As for the Hanafis, however, they hold that performing a complete set of wudu (أن يتوضأ وضوءاً كاملاً) [before putting the socks on] is not necessary precondition for the act of wiping one's socks to be valid. Rather, if one washed his feet as in ritual ablutions ( إذا غسل قدمه المفروض غسله) [so he has to wash them in the way that it is obliged to be done (i.e. a wudu washing, not just that they are clean)], then put his shoes without having any occurrence of hadath, then completed his wudu [ثم أتم وضوءه], this would be valid provided that one's wudu had performed with water, and provided that the water used had made contact with all parts of the boyd requring washing or wiping during wudu.

There are other things that could be said about this, but for our purposes: because neither order nor continuity are obligations in the Hanafi school, al-Jaziri is declaring the the Hanafis allow one to wash their feet, put on their socks and then later (whether this is immediate or after some time) complete their wudu. Once this initial wudu is complete, they then can wipe over their socks. As I demonstrated previously, al-Jaziri made a mistake, but I no longer believe it is due to what I said in the past. Because neither order nor continuity are obligations in the Hanafi school, either al-Jaziri made an incorrect assumption about the Hanafis or misunderstood what was in the references he looked into - perhaps as a result of his assumption. In some of the commentaries of later Hanafi texts, it mentions that if one put the socks on after they were washed, it is permissible to wipe over them. But it is established in earlier and more authoritative texts that this is not absolutely true. Rather, it can only be done after wudu is complete and one had washed their feet prior. And it is clear to me, considering where such statements are found, that the authors (e.g. Shurunbulali) were not opposing the earlier texts by this statement, but were simply explaining the principle with the understanding that this is when the feet are washed when they should be in wudu: last.

You are adding an additional element of misunderstanding in that you do not acknowledge that when the fuqaha say "tahara" or "ghuslu" in their fiqh works, they are referring to ritual purity and ritual washing and not mere cleanliness. And to this effect, we come to point #3.

3) That precisely is my problem with the phrase "there is nothing specific in the shari'ah" that certain people on this forum are fond of saying anytime they do not agree with orthodox interpretation. The Qur'an itself says, "When you stand to pray..." do the things that we all know it says. Among those things are washing of the feet. This is the shari`ah. Thus, it is necessarily understood that before you can wipe over socks, the feet must have been washed in prayer first. This is clearly what is understood when you consider ALL the evidence as a ORGANIC whole, and not compartmentalize matters.

Hence, when a person makes wudu, they are not simply cleansing themselves, they are preparing themselves for prayer and that prayer preparation is necessarily what is intended by the words, "I put them on while they were pure." You are doing EXACTLY the same thing that Ihsan is doing, in interpreting a hadith according to linguistic implications, an interpretation that completely negates the other relevant issues/evidences that should be considered. The hadith of Mughira are not saying that khuffs can be wiped over as long as the feet were CLEAN, but PURE. This is why Imam Malik follows up this hadith in the Muwatta with the statement of Umar,

Abdullah then asked Umar and Umar replied, "If your feet are ritually pure when you put them in the leather socks then you can wipe over the socks." Abdullah said ,"What about if we have just come from relieving ourselves?" Umar said, "Yes, even if you have just come from relieving yourself."

And this why it is followed up with what I quoted before (which Ihsan oddly claimed had no relevancy to our discussion),

Yahya said that Malik was asked whether a man who did wudu for prayerand then put on his leather socks, and then urinated and took them off and put them back on again, should begin wudu afresh. Malik replied, "He should take off his socks and wash his feet. Only someone who puts on leather socks when his feet are (already) ritually purified by wudu can wipe over them. Someone who puts on leather socks when his feet are not ritually purified by wudu, should not wipe over them."

Becase Imam Malik is establishing a principle by the first hadith, namely that the feet must be RITUALLY pure (tahir) as a result of wudu being performed, before one can wash over one's feet. This is reinforced by the statement of Umar, which was a correction of Abdullah ibn Umar, who objected to Saad ibn Abi Waqqas wiping over his socks instead of washing his feet because Abdullah ibn Umar understood that this conflicted with the Qur'an. Imam Malik (or his student Yahya ibn Yahya al-Laythi) follows this up with the clarification from Imam Malik that this principle is so established that if one took their socks off after they had done something which nullified their wudu, they would have to wash them again before they put them back on. And this methodology of Prophetic hadith, Companion confirmation and Tabi'i continuation is the structure of the arguments that Imam Malik makes all through the Muwatta. Ironically, this is what I understand is the proof necessitated by the Islahi school before something can be properly declared to be the "sunnah of the Prophet".

Both you and Ihsan (even though he some how disagrees with you what you and I are specifically talking about here) are making the fundamental mistake of misunderstanding what is meant by tahara due to not taking into consideration that shari` usage of that term. What you are essentially arguing is that by "tahara" or "tahir" the only thing that is meant is "freedom from najasa" and that interpretation is rather peculiar given the context and relevant evidences. Extending this as a rule leads to the absurdities and inconsistencies that I attempted to demonstrate in my previous post (#58), which can only be a result of the peculiar notion that wudu itself is about physical cleanliness, not ritual purity. Once this is considered, then the point about rukhas becomes obsolete, as the Prophet clearly corrected the initial understanding of Mughira and if we accept that washing the feet is NOT about physical cleanliness, but ritual purity, the claims that the "shari'ah is silent" fall by the wayside.

If we cannot agree on the definition or implications of tahara in this bab and in the verses and hadith in question, then there is no common ground that we can reach. Rather, we are going to have a situation where there is an complete ijma` on the fact that the feet have to be ritually pure as a result of a proper wudu or ghusl before they can be washed over as a consequence of the verses and hadith relating to it that has been the case for over 1,000+ years (including Ihsan who agrees with this initial ruling), and you claiming by yourself that the "shari'ah is silent on the matter." As I said, I already know that appeals to authority are pointless here. But at least one should have enough academic humility to accept that opposing such a definitive ijma` at the very least indicates that perhaps you have made a mistake.

So even if we were to say, for the sake of argument, that the shari'ah has "nothing to say" on this matter, you still would be obliged to follow what the relevant evidence dictates and the principal piece of relevant evidence is that the feet have to be washed in preparation for prayer. According to the notion that the "shari'a" is only established through tawatur, the above two hadith cannot be interpreted in a way that negates that the feet need to be washed in wudu prior to wiping being permitted, particularly when there are numerous statement from the Companions to this effect and the ijma` upon this point by the Salaf is effectively the documentation of "practical perpetuation". Rather, it must necessarily be interpreted according to their shari' definition meaning that the Prophet was explicitly saying that it is permissible to wipe upon socks only after the feet have been washed according to the verse.

The underlying problem here is the Islahi school (at least its contemporary representatives) insisting, beyond all reason, that the purpose of wudu is to "ensure that people are physically clean at the time of offering their prayers" and this assertion necessarily results in a fundamental disconnect between the Islahi school and orthodox Sunni scholarship. A disconnect which I believe I accurately explained and criticized in my previous post.

Wa-Llahu `alim wa musta`am

[Al-Boriqi]

but there is nothing explicit in the Sharia (except scholarly interpretation or assumption) to clearly define that feet must necessarily be washed prior to being permissible for masah. The hadith of Mughira rta, I believe you did partially quote it some pages back (it appears in Bukhari, Muslim and Ahmad) :

asalamu alaykum brother. Brother. This is one reason why lumumba has a hard time in responding with what is only necessary to your arguments, it is because you are not realizing what you are actually saying our actualizing what is being stated. Review your own words in bold as you have postulated.

What is understood from your postulated argument above is that in your claim, you assert that there is nothing in the shariah (explicitly) that defines that the feet MUST be washed prior for the act of masaah to take place afterward.

To explain why you assert that there is nothing clear in the shariah for this, you highlighted lumumba's citation of two narrations to prove that his assertion is only based on a "scholarly interpretation" OR "assumption"

There is one problem with this assessment of yours

look at the words in the passages below

One night I was walking with the Prophet (sws). I poured water (on his hands) with a vessel and he washed his blessed face and arms and wiped his head. Then I bent down to take off his socks but he said : Leave them, I wore them when my feet were pure.

This is not scholarly interpretation or assumption, this is clear language that clearly insinuates that masah is performed when the basis has already been established. The reason why this is "c;ear" and not "ambigious" is because there is no other way to interpret them. The very meaning of "ambiguity" in the Arabic language is "mutashaabih" and the reason why something is mutashaabih is precisely because it has more than one angle or meaning that could be understood from a particular clause. As for its opposite, muhkaam i.e. clear, it is muhkaam because it does not have more than one meaning rather it can only have one meaning. That is what is known as "clear" under the auspices of Islamic legal theory. The text above is clearly decisive because there is no other way it can be construed with regard to how masaah is performed.

there is ONLY
a. masaah cannot be performed until AFTER the initial complete wash has been established
or
b. masah can be performed whether the complete wash was established or not.

These are two polar opposites antithetical to the other and there is no third here

Keeping this in mind is key to understanding the narration in question. So let us review the necessary text in question

Then I bent down to take off his socks but he said : Leave them, I wore them when my feet were pure.

This text proves argument A by default AND obliterates argument b by default with a single throw. If performing the masah (wiping) was allowed even in the absence of performing the foundational wudhu (i.e. washing the feet), then the companion who accompaned the Messenger of Allah and who was helping him perform the wudhu WOULD HAVE NEVER TRIED TO take off his socks in the first place. The fact that the companion sought to take off his socks indicates that the complete foundational wudhu (i.e. washing the feet) is necessity to fulfill as a precursor for the allowance of masaah. If masah was allowed without it, then the companion would have never tried to take off his socks in the first place and would have simply performed the masaah.

Furthermore, the speech of the Messenger further does the same, it knocks two birds with one stone here i.e. validate argument a (what Lumumba was arguing all along) and obliterates argument b (what you argued).

The fact that the Prophet alayhi salatu salam said "leave them" is predicated on the fact that the only purpose of leaving them was because he had already performed the complete foundational wudhu (i.e. washing of the feet) which is clearly indicated when he said "I wore them (the socks) when my feet were pure (when they were completely washed in wudhu).

Again, HAD premise b been correct, namely that its fine to perform masaah regardless of having complete wudhu prior or not, then the Prophet alayhi salatu salaam would have never even made a response at all, he would have simply allowed for the companion to simply pour the water in order for himself to make the masaah. But the fact that the companion proceeded to take off his socks and for the Prophet to respond with a response clearly reveals that BOTH parties understood that the complete foundational wudhu (i.e. washing the feet) is a prerequisite for the allowance of the performance of masaah to take place.

The exact same thing with regards to legitmizing premise a and obliterating premise b takes place with the second narration cited, and thus there is no need to give the same clearly understood commentary for the second hadeth.

[lumumba_s]

I do not have a hard time responding. The underlying issue is the implication of the word "tahara" and the refusal of both Shaad and Ihsan to give an explicit working definition of the term. And because they refuse to give a working definition of the term, all the logical and rational arguments that have been proposed here (and in the nail polish debate) amount to nothing, as it is impossible to clearly articulate something when the very terms and concepts that these terms convey are intentionally left ambiguous.

If tahara/tahir is taken on its face value (i.e. lexical meaning) and wudu/ghusl thus understood to be an act of physical purification (why you all insist upon this, I did not understand until I saw Moiz Amjad argue the same), then the rule that, "Conditions must be fulfilled, they do not need to be sought" applies. If tahara in the Qur'an and hadith merely refers to physical cleanliness, then physical purification necessairly is fulfilled by the removal of impurities, something which is only necessary when impurities are present. Thus, when the Qur'an says, "And purify your garments", it is understood that if one's garments are already free of impurities, they do not need to be purified and this state of purity remains the basis until it is violated, as the condition of purity is already present.

It is absurd to interpret the verses of wudu, ghusl and tayammum in this light, for which reason the purely lexical definition of tahara is not what is intended by the verse of wudu and cannot be insisted upon. Rather, this argument is first and foremost an issue of tafsir, before we even get to fiqh. In the verse, it simply says that before you begin your prayer you are required to wash/wipe the limbs. There is nothing said about tahara here, but the command is simply GHUSL. If one is in a state of janaba, then one is ordered to purify themselves with an emphatic form of the word tahara, implying that the entire body needs to be washed. If no water is available and: (a) impurities or gas have exited your private parts or (b) you have touched women, then you are required to wipe your face and hands with sa'id. Once this is done, then one is declared to be PURE by the wording of the Qur'an. To mockingly deny that this wiping of one's face and hands renders one physically clean is an EXPLICIT admission that physical purity is NOT the point of wudu, ghusl or tayammum and that therefore, the whole premise that underlies your understanding is INVALID.

This verse (by usul, logic AND common sense) is thus necessarily redefining the term "tahara" according to the stipulations that it makes. With this standard of "tahara", Mughira understood necessarily that the feet had to be washed in order for the purity to be achieved that precedes prayer, hence he attempted to take off the Prophet's khuffs without even asking him. It follows that since the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) informed Mughira that his khuffs did not need to be removed since his feet were pure, it is necessary for this purity be understood to refer to the type of purity detailed in verse 5:6 as a consequence of wudu being performed, and not merely the fact that they are clean as demanded in verse 74:4, as the ritual washing in wudu is what Mughira was attempting to facilitate in the incident.

That tahara in the Qur'an in respect to purity that permits prayer is only a reference to physical purity is patently absurd. And it is only in taking this absurd stance that it can be argued that "nothing in the shari'ah demands that the feet have to be washed prior to putting on socks". Rather, the Qur'an clearly demands it and that the Qur'an clearly demands the feet be washed is the reason why the Shi`a considered wiping abrogated (despite the fact that they only demand wiping of the feet in the first place) and that the Sunna and communal practice establishes the legitimacy of wiping over khuffs is the reason why you will not find a single scholar opining what Shaad has mentioned - not even Ibn Hazm. Because the Qur'an demands that the feet need to be washed and the Sunna permits khuffs to be wiped over, it follows necessarily that the two must be joined and thus khuffs cannot be wiped over unless the feet have been washed. That this is the case is the only reasonable interpretation of the hadith in question. Furthermore, the ambiguous usage of the term shari`ah, absent any clearly articulated methodology, is another problem in such discussion as is the general unwilling-less to define anything clearly under the pretext that the word is simply known in the language. This argument is flawed and there numerous other instances where the meaning of a term was modified and applied to a specific concept in the Sacred Law: e.g., siyam, riba', salat.

As it seems is usually the case, our entire disagreement is based purely upon linguistics and the particularly peculiar stance of not taking Qur'anic or Prophetic incidents of altering the language into consideration. And I realized yesterday, after re-reading the threads on nail polish and murabaha, that we are arguing over the EXACT same things that we were back then and in the nail polish debate, were arguing over the exact same principles. As such, if my last three replies do not cause Shaad, Ihsan or Ron to re-think their positions, then clearly our chosen methodologies are mutually exclusive in respect to usul, simple logic and legal rationale and the problem is more fundamental to our respective religious understandings than these few examples can resolve.

Wa-Llahu `alim wa musta`am

[lumumba_s]

As salamu `alaykum,

I have made one mistake, subsequent to my follow-up clarification of the passage in question from Abd al-Rahman al-Jaziri in post #63. After reviewing my notes, checking other references and seeking clarity from someone who knows better, I realized I had read too much into a particular passage after the fact and had missed a key phrase that our shaykh had made initially. I owe Abd al-Rahman al-Jaziri an apology. He was correct in what he said WHEN you understand it properly. It is indeed permissible in the Hanafi madhhab to perform wudu out of order, wash one's feet, put on the khuffs, complete one's wudu and subsequently wipe over one's khuffs. However, the general rule is that intentionally performing wudu out of order for no legitimate reason in the Hanafi school is sinful since tartib is sunna mu'akkada and habitually neglecting a sunna mu'akkada is sinful if done for no legitimate reason.

However, Shaad's understanding of the passage is not correct and it is definitively NOT valid in the Hanafi school (or any other) to put on socks when the feet are simply free of impurities, wear the khuffs and have one's feet purified by wiping. That the feet have to be ritually pure before putting them on is without question the ijma of Sunni scholarship (including the Zahiri's as expressed by Ibn Hazm) as a result of the Qur'anic command. The only difference is that the Hanafis do not additionally stipulate that one's entire wudu has to be completed prior to putting the khuffs on. I perhaps made this mistake subsequent to our discussion because even though the Malikis agree that tartib of the obligations is sunna in the wudu, they nonetheless agree with the Shafi'is and Hanbalis that they be worn after wudu/ghusl is completed in order for wiping to be valid.

Wa-Llahu `alim wa musta`am