MASAH ALAL KHUFFAIN
- INTRODUCTION
- THE MEANINGS
- THE BASIS FOR MASAH ALAL KHUFFAIN
- THE KINDS OF JURRAAB (NON-LEATHER SOCKS)
- THE BLIND TAQLEED OF THE SALAFIS
THE BASIS FOR MASAH ALAL KHUFFAIN
The act of Masah Alal Khuffain is in conflict with rational reasoning. The true and actual cleaner and purifier is only water, hence Tahaarat (Purification from ceremonial impurities) is achieved only by the use of water and not by any other liquid whatsoever. Thus, wudhu and ghusl are not valid with any type of juice or clean (taahir) liquid. Even if such liquid has the property of cleansing an item of its physical impurities.
Masah is in conflict with reason because this act does not literally clean just as sand in Tayammum is in conflict with reason because it does not purify/clean as water does. In terms of the principles of the Shariah, any Shar’i Hukm which is in conflict with Qiyaas (Analogical and rational reasoning) may not be extended to any other act of ibaadat. It shall be confined to its Maurad (i.e. the original act of ibaadat specified by the Shariah). An ‘irrational’ law commanded by the Qur’aan or Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatarah for a particular occasion or act may not be extended to other actions on the basis of the Shariah’s process of Analogical Reasoning {Qiyaas).
This will be illustrated by means of an example. Consider the Shariah’s mas’alah (according to the Hanafi Math-hab) of the breaking of Wudhu by loud laughter. If the musalli laughs aloud during Salaat, it nullifies both his Salaat and Wudhu. The first effect, i.e. of Salaat breaking is rational and understandable. But the second effect, namely, breaking of Wudhu, is incomprehensible at face value, and is in conflict with rational reasoning because when a person laughs aloud, no impurity emerges from his body. Since only the emergence of impurity nullifies Wudhu, the ruling off Wudhu breaking by loud laughter is ‘illogic’.
However, since this is the Ruling of the Shariah, we cast aside our reasoning and our logic and submit in obedience to the command of the Shariah because this is the Command of Allah Ta’ala. We confine this ruling to only Salaat. That is, loud laughter will break Wudhu only if the act is committed during Salaat. Hence if someone laughs when he is not in Salaat, such laughter will not break Wudhu.
From this it will be understood that one of the conditions for the validity of Qiyaas-e-Shar’i (The Analogical process of deduction of masaail of the Shariah) is that the original basis, called Maqees Alayh, should not be in conflict with Qiyaas.
Now consider the act of Masah Alal Khuffain. Masah on khuffain in lieu of washing the feet commanded by the Qur’aan is ‘illogic’, It is in conflict with ‘rational’ understanding or Qiyaas. Passing a moist hand on top of the khuffain does not, to our understanding, perform the same function as washing the feet thoroughly with water. In fact, the Shariah emphasises washing with water to such a degree that even if a millimetre remains dry on any part washed in Wudhu, then the Wudhu will not be valid. But in the case of Masah, both feet in entirety arc left unwashed and dry. The Shariah proclaims the act of Masah an adequate substitute for washing the feet.
Since the act of Masah Alal Khuffain came into force in total conflict with ‘rational’ reasoning and in conflict with Nass-e-Qat’i, i.e. the Qur’aanic verse commanding washing of the feet, it will be confined to its Maurad, i.e. KHUFFAIN. It is haraam and baatil to extend it to any other substratum such as ordinary socks. Khuffain in the unanimous exposition of the Authorities of the Ummah are only leather socks.
For the unacquainted minds there is a need to further explain this mas’alah lest ignorance constrains people to conclude that the act of Masah Alal Khuffain itself is unlawful in view of its conflict with the Qur’aanic aayat commanding washing of the feet. The highest category of Hadith narrations is termed Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatarah. Ahaadith of this classification are on par with Qur’aanic verses. A Qur’aanic injunction can be adequately and correctly explained, restricted and extended on the basis of such Ahaadith. There is absolutely no difference of opinion among any of the authorities of the Shariah right from the time of the Sahaabah on this issue.
The act of Masah Alal Khuffain is based on Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatarah, hence its Mashrooiyyat (it being an order of the Shariah). If Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatarah had not existed on the permissibility of Masah Alal Khuffain, then it would never have been lawful to legalize this act in lieu of washing the feet which is commanded by the Qur’aan.
In terms of the principles of the Shariah as explained above, it is not permissible or valid to transfer this permissibility of Masah to any item other than Khuffain because the original Hukm is in conflict with Qiyaas. It has to be restricted to Khuffain which are leather socks. It is precisely for this reason that Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh) rigidly maintains that masah is not valid on any type of socks besides leather socks even if any other type of socks have the qualities of leather socks. And, both Imaam Maalik and Imaam Shaafi (rahmatullah alayhima) rule that even if Thakheen socks have leather sewn around them, then too masah on them is not valid.
Thakheen are such heavy woollen socks which have all the attributes of leather. They are not the normal processed and ‘refined’ woollen socks available nowadays in the modern world. According to the majority of Hanafi Fuqaha, masah on Thakheen is valid because such socks are in the very same category as Khuffain. The validity of Masah on Thakeen is dependent on the following conditions:
• It is possible to walk in them for more than three miles without them tearing. The walking is without shoes on.
• They must be non-porous preventing water seeping through.
• They must remain firm on the foreleg without being tied with laces, elastic, etc. They should not slip down while walking as ordinary socks do.
If the socks arc of this standard, having all the properties of Khuffain (leather socks), then according to the Ahnaaf they are in fact in the same category as leather socks, hence it is not a question of transferring the hukm of masah to an item which does not comply with the Maurad (the khuffain) mentioned in the Nass (Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatarah).
The only difference of opinion among the Shariah’s illustrious Authorities on this question relates to such socks which are in the category of Khuffain. There is absolutely no difference of opinion on the prohibition of masah on ordinary socks on which the modernist Salafis and Ghair Muqallideen make masah to appease their nafs (lowly desires and fancies). They have adopted the practice of masah on ordinary socks on the basis of their weird and fallacious nafsaani opinion, and on nothing else. They have absolutely no Hadith support for the fallacy propagated by their imam of this century.
The Authority, Jassaas (rahmatullah alayh), in Ahkaamul Qur’aan, encapsulates this discussion as follows:
“The actual basis is that the purport of the Aayat (of Wudhu) is washing which is proven (by Nass-e-Qat’i), If it were not for the Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatarah narrated from the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) regarding Masah alal Khuffain, we would not have made lawful Masah. Since authentic Ahaadith (of the Mutawaatir class) have been narrated we utilized it as proof for its (i.e. the masah’s) employment (and validity), and we used it in conformity with the aayat in that it covers the exigency of masah (by virtue of the Ahaadith). And, we left the balance (of the narrations which are not Mutawaatar) on the basis of the aayat’s command. Since the narrations of masah on jurabain (non-leather socks have not been narrated to the extent of the narrations of masah on khuffain, we retained the hukm of washing on the maurad of the aayat, (i.e. washing of the feet).”
JURABAIN
Jurabain are non-leather socks of wool, cotton or any other cloth. There are some narrations which mention masah on jurabain. However, these narrations are not of the Mutawaatar class, hence may not be cited to override or water down a command by the Qur’aan. Nevertheless, an explanation for masah on jurabain mentioned in some Ahaadith is necessary to dispel the confusion created by the Ghair Muqallideen. Firstly, there is not a single Authority among the Salf-e-Saaliheen (the illustrious and pious predecessors of the Khairul Quroon era) who claims that masah on ordinary socks is valid notwithstanding the Hadith narrations which mention masah on Jurabain. The Authorities of those early ages had more awareness of the meaning of jurabain in the context of masah. Those authorities who hold the view of the validity of masah on jurabain, do not say that masah is valid on just any type of socks such as the socks we have in our day. According to them, if the jurabain are covered with leather, then masah on them is valid. In this regard it is necessary to explain in some detail for a proper understanding.
In Ahkaamul Qur’aan, Jassaas says: “They (the Fuqaha) differed on the question of masal alah jurabain. According to Imaam Abu Hanifah and Imaam Shaafi (rahmatullah alayhima) masah on jurabain is not permissible except if they are mujallad (i.e. leather sewn over them). Tahaawi narrates from ImaamMaalik (rahmatullah alayh) that masah on jurabain is not valid even if they are mujalladain (on which leather has been sewn). Some of the Companions of Imaam Maalik narrate that according to him, masah on jurabain is not permissible except that they be mujalladain like khuffain. Thauri, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Hasan Ibn Saalih (rahmatullah alayhim) said that if the jurabain are thakheenain, then masah on them is valid even if they are not mujalladain.” (We have already explained the meaning of Thakheen earlier.)