Question: Wiping over the socks

[Ummu Sufyaan]

:sl: brothers and sister.
when one wipes over thier socks, can they be dirty (like go off colour from the floor one has been walking on for example, or with soil, etc), as opposed to impure (naajis), such as urine, etc??
it's just that i read an article and tt metioned dirt first, then impurities, so im not entirly sure.
jazakallahu khair.
:w:

[rubiesand]

The answer below is primarily of Shafi''i fiqh but the position of the other schools is mentioned also.




Q: What are the characteristics of the socks which makes wiping over them permissible? What do I do if I have been wiping over my socks (thin and thick ones) for years?




A: Just like the khuff, socks must fulfill five conditions before it is permissible to wipe over them during wudu. They are:

1) That they be strong such that one can walk continuously on them for the length of time that a traveller would in his comings and goings to fulfill his needs, such as going somewhere to fulfil his needs, such as relieving himself, buying food, and so forth. It is not intended that one must be able to walk in them throughout the duration of the journey.

2) That they be thick, whereby if water is poured on it, it would not penetrate through quickly.

3) That it completely cover the part that is to be washed during wudu, which is the feet including the ankles.

4) That they be pure of filth

5) That they be worn after one has made a complete wudu, having washed both feet first, for if one washes one foot and puts on one sock, then washed the other foot and puts on the other sock, it is not permissible to wipe over them.

So whenever a sock fulfills these five conditions, it is permissible to wipe over it, and when it doesn’t, then it is not valid. It follows from this that anyone who [s. in wudu] has wiped over their thin socks or socks that aren’t strong enough, his prayers are invalid in our school, so he must make them up. This is the same in the Hanafi and Maliki schools, because their relied-upon books verify the invalidity of wiping over thin socks.

As for the Hanbali school, some ascribe to it that it is permissible to wipe over thin socks. When glancing at their books, it seems that sometimes, it is mentioned as permissible and sometimes it is not, and I am not certain regarding their relied-upon position. However, the erudite scholar, al-Mubarkafuri, said in his commentary of “Sunan al-Tirmidhi”, that the Hanbali madhhab agrees with the majority on the position that wiping over thin socks is not permissible.

In any case, the established position in the three schools is the invalidity of the prayer if one wiped over their thin socks during wudu, as most socks are these days, and he must make up those prayers. However, what seems to be apparent to this impoverished soul, is that it is not obligatory to making up these prayers immediately because of the large number of people these days who give fatwas that it is permissible [h. to wipe over thin socks] because of which [h. wiping over thin socks] has become widespread among the non-scholars to the extent that they denounce that fact that it is not permissible (which is the sound position). This [h. widespread] dubious position is sufficient [as excuse] from people having to make up the prayers immediately, because they did not [h. perform an invalid prayer] through open violation. And Allah knows the truth best and to Him is the return and the final abode. - Amjad Rasheed
(Translated by Sr. Shazia Ahmad)

source

[sudais1]

jazakallah , i needed this

[Muhammad]

:sl:

Please see the following links:

Conditions of wiping over socks

For further info: http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?cref=255&ln=eng

We also have a few other threads on this topic, so you can search for those if you need to Insha'Allaah.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Ummu Sufyaan]

The answer below is primarily of Shafi''i fiqh but the position of the other schools is mentioned also.




Q: What are the characteristics of the socks which makes wiping over them permissible? What do I do if I have been wiping over my socks (thin and thick ones) for years?




A: Just like the khuff, socks must fulfill five conditions before it is permissible to wipe over them during wudu. They are:

1) That they be strong such that one can walk continuously on them for the length of time that a traveller would in his comings and goings to fulfill his needs, such as going somewhere to fulfil his needs, such as relieving himself, buying food, and so forth. It is not intended that one must be able to walk in them throughout the duration of the journey.

2) That they be thick, whereby if water is poured on it, it would not penetrate through quickly.

3) That it completely cover the part that is to be washed during wudu, which is the feet including the ankles.

4) That they be pure of filth

5) That they be worn after one has made a complete wudu, having washed both feet first, for if one washes one foot and puts on one sock, then washed the other foot and puts on the other sock, it is not permissible to wipe over them.

So whenever a sock fulfills these five conditions, it is permissible to wipe over it, and when it doesn’t, then it is not valid. It follows from this that anyone who [s. in wudu] has wiped over their thin socks or socks that aren’t strong enough, his prayers are invalid in our school, so he must make them up. This is the same in the Hanafi and Maliki schools, because their relied-upon books verify the invalidity of wiping over thin socks.

As for the Hanbali school, some ascribe to it that it is permissible to wipe over thin socks. When glancing at their books, it seems that sometimes, it is mentioned as permissible and sometimes it is not, and I am not certain regarding their relied-upon position. However, the erudite scholar, al-Mubarkafuri, said in his commentary of “Sunan al-Tirmidhi”, that the Hanbali madhhab agrees with the majority on the position that wiping over thin socks is not permissible.

In any case, the established position in the three schools is the invalidity of the prayer if one wiped over their thin socks during wudu, as most socks are these days, and he must make up those prayers. However, what seems to be apparent to this impoverished soul, is that it is not obligatory to making up these prayers immediately because of the large number of people these days who give fatwas that it is permissible [h. to wipe over thin socks] because of which [h. wiping over thin socks] has become widespread among the non-scholars to the extent that they denounce that fact that it is not permissible (which is the sound position). This [h. widespread] dubious position is sufficient [as excuse] from people having to make up the prayers immediately, because they did not [h. perform an invalid prayer] through open violation. And Allah knows the truth best and to Him is the return and the final abode. - Amjad Rasheed
(Translated by Sr. Shazia Ahmad)

source

:sl: brothers and sisters.
jazakallahu khair for that. im just wondering what is the evidence for condition number 2. 'cos i always step in water puddles, like if im in the bathroom or something.
:sl:

[Snowflake]

:sl: brothers and sisters.
jazakallahu khair for that. im just wondering what is the evidence for condition number 2. 'cos i always step in water puddles, like if im in the bathroom or something.
:sl:

lol I think you need a plumber sis

I didn't understand the 'thin socks' fatwa at all. If one is wearing normal clean socks after wudhu and they haven't been anywhere, or walked on the floor, can they wipe over the socks in that case?

[Ummu Sufyaan]

:sl: brothers and sisters.
as i was dong some research on the 'purity of the socks being wiped' thread, i realized that there are several opinions regarding the thinness/thickness of the socks.
So far the opinions are (the text in bold):

Ruling on wiping over socks that have holes in them

Question:
Is it permissible to wipe over socks that have holes in them [when making wudoo’]?

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

The correct view is that it is permissible to wipe over khuff (leather slippers which cover the foot and ankle) or socks that have holes in them. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) allowed wiping over khuff and he did not stipulate any condition that they should be whole and free of holes or tears, especially since the khuff of his companions were not free of holes or tears. If this had any effect on whether one could wipe over them, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would have stated that clearly, for one of the basic principles of usool al-fiqh is that it is not permitted to delay explaining something when it is needed.

Imaam Sufyaan al-Thawri (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “One may wipe over the khuff so long as it is still clinging to the feet. Were the khuff of the Muhaajireen and Ansaar anything but full of holes and tears?” (Narrated by ‘Abd al-Razzaaq in al-Musanaaf, 1/194)

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Fataawa (21/174): When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) gave the command to wipe over the khuff, he knew what the normal state of affairs was, and he did not stipulate the condition that the socks should be whole and free of any faults. His command should be taken as general in meaning and it should not be restricted unless there is any shar’i evidence for doing so. What is implied by the wording is that any khuff that people wear and walk about in may be wiped over, even if they have holes or are worn out, without defining the acceptable extent for these holes and tears, because even such a definition would require evidence…”

This is also the view of Ishaaq, Ibn al-Mubaarak, Ibn ‘Uyaynah and Abu Thawr.

Imaam al-Shaafa'i and Ahmad – according to the well-known views narrated from them – said that it is not permissible to wipe over the khuff or socks so long as there are any holes or tears in the place where it is obligatory to do wudoo’. Abu Haneefah and Maalik differentiated between small holes and large holes.

But the correct view is the first view quoted above, which is that it is permissible to wipe over the khuff or socks so long as they are still clinging to the feet and it is still possible to walk in them.

It is also correct to wipe over socks through which the skin can be seen, because the permission to wipe over socks is general and no report of any restriction has been narrated. This implies that any socks which people wear may be wiped over. This is what is implied by those who say that it is permissible to wipe over khuff that are worn out, so long as it is still possible to walk in them.

Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) mentioned in al-Majmoo’ (1/502) that even if a person were to wear khuff made of glass, if it were possible to walk in them then it would be permissible to wipe over them, even though the skin beneath them would be visible…

And Allaah knows best.


Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn Naasir al-‘Alwaan

http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=8186&ln=eng

and....

Ruling on wiping over socks that have holes or are very thin
Question:
What is the ruling about wiping over one’s socks if they have holes or are very thin?

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

It is permissible to wipe over them instead of washing one's feet when doing wudoo’, if they were put on when one was in a state of tahaarah (purity), unless the holes are bigger than is ordinarily acceptable, or the socks are so thin that the feet would be judged to be naked because they show the colour of skin beneath them.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 5/246.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 5/246.

http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=2171&ln=eng


so my questions Are: what do yo do when you are faced with a situation like this. does this mean that both opinions are acceptable. i would personally go with the strongest opinion, but there isn't one there. like there's no Hadiths to judge it by. Am i not understanding something in regards to these two fatwa's. please explain.

jaakallahu khair

:sl:

[Malaikah]

:sl:

This is confusing. :rollseyes

Ruling on wiping over socks that have holes or are very thin

Question:
What is the ruling about wiping over one’s socks if they have holes or are very thin?

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

It is permissible to wipe over them instead of washing one's feet when doing wudoo’, if they were put on when one was in a state of tahaarah (purity), unless the holes are bigger than is ordinarily acceptable, or the socks are so thin that the feet would be judged to be naked because they show the colour of skin beneath them.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 5/246.

http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=13954&ln=eng

[Ummu Sufyaan]

:sl: sis^^
yeah, i started a different thread concerning differing opinions.
what i want to know is what is ordinarily acceptable, in regards to holes in socks??
:sl:

[Roo_88]

jazakAllah khairun

[peaceman]

:sl:

The scholars specify the time period of wiping over the socks, that is one day after the person first wipes the sock for a resident, and three days for the traveller. If the person removes the socks after wiping, or the time period expires, washing the feet is sufficient to stay in wudu.

As far as purity is concerned, from fiqh-us-sunnah:

------

Abu Sa'eed reported that the Prophet removed his shoes and the people behind him did likewise. When he finished the prayer, he asked, "Why did you remove your shoes?" They said, "We saw you remove yours." He said, "Gabriel came to me and informed me that there was some filth on them. Therefore, when one of you comes to the mosque, he should turn his shoes over and examine them. If one finds any dirt on them, he should rub them against the ground and pray with them on." The hadith is related by Ahmad, Abu Dawud, al-Hakim, Ibn Hibban and Ibn Khuzaimah. The latter grades it as sahih.

This hadith shows that if one enters the mosque (with his shoes on) and is unaware of some impurity or has forgotten it, and he suddenly remembers it during the prayer, he must try to remove it and proceed with the prayer. He does not have to repeat it later on.

Concerning the purity of the place where one is praying, Abu Hurairah said, "A bedouin stood and urinated in the mosque. The people got up to grab him. The Prophet said, 'Leave him and pour a container full of water over his urine. You have been raised to be easy on the people, not to be hard on them." (Related by "the group," except for Muslim.)

Commenting on this subject, ash-Shaukani says, "If what has been produced of proof is firmly established, then one would know that it is obligatory to have one's clothes free of impurities. Whoever prays and has impurities on his clothing has left one of the obligations of the prayer. But his prayer would not be voided." In ar-Rauzhat an-Nabiyyah it states, "The majority of scholars are of the opinion that it is obligatory to purify three things: the body, the clothes, and the place of prayer. Some are of the opinion that this is a condition for the soundness of the prayer, and others say that it is just a sunnah. The truth of the matter is that it is obligatory. Whoever intentionally prays with impurities on his clothing has left one of the obligations (of the prayer), but the prayer is still valid."

-------

On the condition of foot coverings, Ibn Taymiyya says (from fiqh-us-sunnah) :

-------
" It is all right to wipe over foot covering because it takes precedence over wiping socks or slippers, for usually a foot covering is used for some need and to protect the feet from some harm. If wiping over the socks and slippers is allowed, then wiping over any foot covering should come first. Whoever claims that there is a consensus on the inadmissibility of wiping over foot coverings does so with a lack of knowledge. Not to speak of a consensus, he cannot prove its forbiddance even from the works of ten famous scholars." He goes on to say, "Whoever ponders over the words of the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, and gives analogy its proper place, will know that the license from him was spacious on this subject and in accord with the beauty of Islamic law and the monotheistic magnanimity with which the Prophet had been sent."

Even if there are some holes or cuts in the socks, it is permissible to wipe over them, as long as the person has only such socks to wear. Says al-Thauri, "The slippers of the emigrants and helpers were not free of cuts or holes, like the slippers of the people (in general). If this were a matter of concern, it would have been mentioned and related by them."
---------

This is also the opinion of bin baz, and many of the contemporary scholars, and is a valid opinion. There are some opinions on certain issues by some scholars that may differ from all the four schools. One cannot say that these opinions are invalid.

And Allah knows

:w:

[E'jaazi]

1) Ask Allah for Giudance
2) Take the stronger of the two opinions. But here, they both seem to offer different views in which both can be applied.
3) Remember, somewhere it states that the Scholars get blessings for their verdicts. Two for being correct and one for being incorrect.

[E'jaazi]

This may also help you to understand. It goes much deeper, but the answer you are looking for is contained within:




Is there no denunciation with regard to matters concerning which the scholars differed?

Question:

Some people say that with regard to matters concerning which the scholars differed, the person who follows one of the scholarly views is not to be denounced, and they mention the principle that “there is no denunciation with regard to matters concerning which the scholars differed.” Is this principle correct?.

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.


This principle which some people speak of, that “there is no denunciation with regard to matters concerning which the scholars differed,” is not correct, and the correct view is that “there is no denunciation with regard to matters that are subject to ijtihaad.” To explain that, we have to know that the matters concerning which the scholars differed are of two types.

1 – There are issues for which the ruling has been clearly stated in the Holy Qur’aan or the saheeh Sunnah with no opposing text, or it is narrated that there was scholarly consensus, although some later scholars held odd views and went against that consensus, or the ruling was derived by means of clear and unambiguous analogy. In these cases, the one who goes against the evidence is to be denounced.

There are many examples of this kind of issue, such as:

1. Denying the attributes of Allaah by which He praised Himself, or His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) described Him, under the guise of ta’weel (“interpretation”), which in fact is a distortion of the texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

2. Denying some of the true events which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said will happen on the Day of Resurrection, such as the Balance and the Siraat (bridge over Hell).

3. What some contemporary scholars say about it being permissible to take interest on money deposited in the bank even though this is the essence of riba which Allaah and His Messenger have forbidden.

4. Saying that nikaah al-tahleel (marriage to a divorced woman with the aim of divorcing her in order to make her permissible for her first husband) is halaal. This is a false view because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed the one who enters into such a marriage and the one for whom it is done.

5. Saying that it is permissible to listen to musical instruments. This is a reprehensible view, and there is a great deal of evidence from the Qur’aan, Sunnah and opinions of the salaf (early generation) which indicates that it is false. Hence the four imams were unanimously agreed that it is haraam.

6. Saying that the one who enters the mosque on Friday when the imam is giving the khutbah should sit down and listen to the khutbah and not pray tahiyyat al-masjid (two rak’ahs to “greet the mosque”).

7. Saying that it is not mustahabb to raise the hands during prayer when saying takbeer for bowing and when rising from bowing and when standing up for the second rak’ah.

8. Saying that it is not mustahabb to offer the prayer for rain (istisqa’). It is proven in al-Saheehayn and elsewhere that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did that with a group of his companions.

9. Saying that it is not mustahabb to fast six days of Shawwaal after Ramadaan.

In these and similar cases where there is a text that clearly explains the ruling, the one who goes against that is to be denounced. The Sahaabah and those who came after them continued to denounce the one who went against sound evidence, even if that was based on ijtihaad.

2 – The second type of issue is that for which there is no clear evidence on the ruling in the Qur’aan, Sunnah, scholarly consensus or clear analogy.

Or there is evidence for the ruling in the Sunnah, but there is some dispute as to whether it is saheeh, or it does not clearly define the ruling, rather it is subject to different interpretations.

Or there are texts concerning it which appear to contradict one another.

These issues require a kind of ijtihaad and study in order to find out the ruling. Examples of this kind of issue include the following:

1. The difference of opinion as to whether the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saw his Lord in this world.

2. The difference of opinion as to whether the dead can hear the words of the living.

3. Whether wudoo’ is invalidated by touching one's penis or touching a woman or eating camel meat.

4. Reciting Qunoot in Fajr every day.

5. Reciting Qunoot in Witr prayer – is it done before bowing or after?

In these and similar cases where there is no clear text to explain the ruling, the one who does something different is not to be denounced, so long as he is following one of the imams and thinks that his view is correct. But it is not permissible for anyone to follow the scholarly view that coincides with his whims and desires, because by doing that one may be combining all kinds of evil.

Not denouncing the one who acts differently in such cases does not mean that we should not examine or debate the matter and explain which view is more likely to be correct, based on the evidence. Rather the scholars, past and present, have held gatherings to debate and discuss such issues and the one who recognizes the truth must follow it.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: With regard to matters of ijtihaad, they are not to be denounced by force, and no one has the right to force the people to follow him with regard to them, but he may speak of them on the basis of evidence. Whoever thinks that one of the two views is correct should follow it, and whoever follows those who favour the other view should not be denounced.

End quote from Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (30/80).

There follow some scholarly views which support what we have said above about this categorization:

1 – Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

The view that there is no denunciation in matters where there is a difference of scholarly opinion is not correct, as denunciation is aimed either at the ruling issued by someone or at actions (that go against the Sunnah).

With regard to the former, if a ruling goes against the Sunnah or ancient consensus then it must be denounced according to all scholars. If that is not the case then it must be denounced in the sense that its weakness must be pointed out. This is the view of those who say there can only be one correct ruling, and this is the view of most of the salaf and the fuqaha’.

With regard to actions, if they go against Sunnah or consensus then they must also be denounced, according to the degrees of denunciation.

But if there is no Sunnah or consensus concerning the matter and ijtihaad is valid in this case, then the one who acts on the basis of ijtihaad, whether he is a mujtahid or is following a mujtahid, is not to be denounced.

Rather this confusion arose because of the idea that issues concerning which the scholars differed are issues of ijtihaad, as some people think. The correct view, which is that held by the imams, is that issues of ijtihaad are those for which there is no evidence that must clearly be followed, such as a saheeh hadeeth which is not contradicted by a hadeeth of similar strength. In the absence of such evidence, ijtihaad is valid because there is contradictory evidence or the evidence is not clear at all. End quote

Bayaan al-Daleel ‘ala Batlaan al-Tahleel (p. 210-211).

He also said:

With regard to matters of ijtihaad, the one who follows one of the scholars in such matters is not to be denounced or forsaken. The one who follows one of the two opinions is not to be denounced. End quote from Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (20/207).

2 – Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Their view that there is no denunciation with regard to matters concerning which the scholars differed is not valid … then he quoted the words of Shaykh al-Islam that we have quoted above, then he said:

How can a faqeeh say that there is no denunciation with regard to matters concerning which the scholars differed, when the fuqaha’ of all groups have clearly stated that the ruling of a judge is invalid if it goes against a verse of the Qur’aan or a Sunnah, even if some of the scholars agree with it? But if there is no Sunnah or consensus regarding an issue, then ijtihaad is permissible and the one who acts on the basis of ijtihaad, whether he is a mujtahid or is following a mujtahid, is not to be denounced.

There are many issues concerning which the earlier and later generations differed but we are certain that one of the two views concerning them is correct, such as the view that the pregnant woman’s ‘iddah ends when she gives birth, or that consummation of marriage with the second husband is a condition of a woman becoming permissible for her first husband (following divorce from the second), or that ghusl becomes necessary when penetration takes place even if there is no ejaculation, or that riba al-fadl (a type of usury) is haraam, or that mut’ah marriage is haraam, or that nabeedh (a drink made from dates) that causes intoxication is haraam, or that a Muslim cannot be killed in retaliation for a kaafir, or that wiping over the socks is permissible whether one is travelling or not, or that the Sunnah when bowing is to place the hands on the knees, not hold them together between the thighs, and that raising the hand when bowing and when rising from bowing is Sunnah, or that pre-emption is permitted with regard to buying land or property, or that waqf (endowment) is valid and is binding, or that the diyah for all fingers and toes is the same, or that the hand of the thief is to be cut off for three dirhams, or that an iron ring is valid as a dowry, or that doing tayammum up to the wrist with one pat is permissible, or that the heir’s fasting on behalf of the deceased is acceptable, or that the pilgrim should recite the talbiyah until he stones Jamarat al-‘Aqabah, or that the muhrim may continue to wear perfume without applying it anew, or that the Sunnah is to say salaam in prayer to the right and the left by saying al-salaamu ‘alaykum wa rahmat-Allaah, al-salaamu ‘alaykum wa rahmat-Allaah, or that the option of cancelling a deal remains until the two parties separate, or when a camel or sheep is retuned after having milked it, with a saa’ of dates must be given in return for the milk, or that there are two bowings in each rak’ah of the eclipse prayer, or that judgement is permissible with a witness and an oath, etc. And there are many more such issues. Hence the imams stated that the rulings of those who issued different rulings in many of these issues are invalid, without impugning on a personal level those who held those opinions.

Whatever the case, there will be no excuse before Allaah on the Day of Resurrection for those who heard ahaadeeth and reports concerning the issue in which there were no contradictions, if he ignored them. End quote.

I’laam al-Muwaqqi’een (3/300-301).

3 – Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdisi said: No one should denounce anyone for following his madhhab, for there is no denunciation with regard to issues that are subject to ijtihaad. End quote from al-Adaab al-Shar’iyyah by Ibn Muflih (1/186).

4 – al-Nawawi said in Sharh Muslim (1/186):

The scholars said: The mufti and the qaadi have no right to object to the one who differs from them so long as he is not going against a text, scholarly consensus or clear analogy. End quote.

5 – Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab said: … If the one whosaid this was referring to issues of dispute, this is invalid and goes against the consensus of the ummah. The Sahaabah and those who came after them continued to denounce those who held views (contrary to the evidence) and made mistakes, no matter who they were, even if they were the most knowledgeable and pious of the people. Allaah sent Muhammad with guidance and true religion, and He commanded us to follow him and to forsake that which goes against that. Part of following him means that if a scholar goes against that by mistake, his error must be pointed out and he must be denounced. If what it meant by matters of ijtihaad is matters concerning which the scholars differed and for which the correct view is not clear, then this is a valid point, and it is not permissible for anyone to denounce something that differs from his madhhab or the people’s customs. As it is not permissible for anyone to enjoin anything without knowledge, by the same token it is not permissible for anyone to denounce anything without knowledge. All of this is included in the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And follow not (O man, i.e., say not, or do not, or witness not) that of which you have no knowledge” [al-Isra’ 17:36]. End quote from al-Durar al-Saniyyah (4/8).

6 – al-Shawkaani said:

This view – that there is no denunciation with regard to matters concerning which the scholars differed – has become the greatest means of preventing the enjoining of what is good and the forbidding of what is evil, which are of a high status as you know. It been enjoined and made obligatory upon this ummah by Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to enjoin that which is good according to sharee’ah and forbid that which is evil according to sharee’ah, and the measure of that is the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Every Muslim should enjoin that which he finds is regarded as good in both or either of them, and he should forbid that which he finds is regarded as evil in both or either of them.

If any scholar says something that differs from that, then his words are to be rejected and he is to be denounced, as is the one who follows his view.

Secondly:

This noble sharee’ah, in which we are commanded to enjoin that which it describes as good and denounce that which it describes as evil, is that which is found in the Qur'aan and Sunnah. End quote from al-Sayl al-Jaraar (4/588).

7 – Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said, refuting those who said that there is no denunciation with regard to matters concerning which the scholars differed:

If we were to say that there is no denunciation at all with regard to matters concerning which the scholars differed, then the entire religion would be lost because of people seeking easy options, because you can hardly find any issue in which there is no difference of opinion among people.

Matters concerning which the scholars differed fall into two categories. (The first category is) matters of ijtihaad in which differences of opinion are valid, in the sense that is a good reason for these differences of opinion. In this case the mujtahid is not to be denounced, and the ordinary Muslims are obliged to follow what the scholars of their country say, so that the masses will not be left in confusion, because if we were to say to the ordinary Muslim: Follow whichever opinion you like, then the community would be disunited. Hence our Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Sa’di (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The common folk should follow the madhhab of their scholars.

The second category is matters concerning which differences of opinion are not valid and there is no room for ijtihaad. In this case the one who holds a different view is to be denounced because he has no excuse. End quote from Liqa’ al-baab il-Maftooh (49/192-193).

And Allaah knows best.

See Hukm al-Inkaar fi Masaa’il al-Khilaaf by Dr. Fadl Ilaahi Zaheer.

Islam Q&A

[Umm Yoosuf]

Threads merged :)

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


Rulings of wiping over socks

- Special File -

http://www.islamqa.com/ln/php/the_file.php?ln=eng