Assalamu Alaykum, My respected brothers in the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, we have sent you a question about praying behind someone who wipes on socks made of fabric, and we requested that more than one respected Mufti sign the answer, as we want it answered by many. However, the answer was given in short, just like all other fatawa. Though this question may be simple, it has a special consideration in our community as it will be the final word in a problem that we face, and everyone agrees to accept the answer, by the will of Allah, if it came from a few Muftis from the four Madhahib. Thus, we request from you an answer in English, because this issue concerns the non-Arabs more than it concerns the Arabs. Please give us a detailed answer about the ruling on wiping on socks and praying behind one who wipes on them. May Allah reward you, your brother Ameen Hussam.

In the name of Allah, the Benevolent, the Merciful. All praise is for Allah, and peace and blessings upon the Messenger of Allah. To answer this question, we first need to clarify the difference between a valid and an invalid or odd dispute, and whether the dispute is strong or weak. Then, we explain the view of those who permitted wiping on socks, and then we end the answer with explaining the method of the people of knowledge when dealing with matters of dispute, particularly when a dispute may lead to great harm and evil, such as leading the Muslims to abandon praying behind each other, with the claim that their wudu or Salah is questionable. 1. Valid and odd disputes: There is no doubt that there were odd disputes that no longer exist, such as permitting the Riba of Fadl, Mut’aa, or some types of wines, and whoever adopts them is condemned for it. The reason why some of the Salaf permitted such views is that they did not know the proofs that stand against them at the time, or they did so out of farfetched interpretations, yet the Ummah later agreed to overcome such matters and abandon these views. On the other hand, the reason why some types of disagreement are valid is that the jurists who adopt different views base them on a textual proof, or deduce them based on sound reasoning (that is based on the principles of religion). This type of dispute varies in strength; it can be weak and it can be strong. The examples of weak disputes exist in all Madhahib, but we will avoid mentioning them here. As for strong disputes, some of the examples are the dispute of the definition of Qar’, the inheritance share of the grandfather in the presence of brothers, reciting the Basmallah loudly in the Salah, etc. In order for a dispute to be valid, some conditions must exist, and some points must be non-existent. For example, a dispute cannot be valid in issues concerning the principles of Imaan or the evidence of Sunnah (as a source of religion from which rulings are deduced), because disputing over such matters nullifies the principles of religion. Also, the view must come from one of those who are known for their knowledge and piety, because no one is allowed to talk about the matters of religion based on personal views and without being qualified. This is accepted in no religions and no sciences. Besides, whoever states a view, then he must present textual proof or a sound logical analysis. Lastly, whenever there is a certain and sound agreement of all scholars about a matter, then no one is allowed to oppose this agreement. Yet, we wish to point out that the claim of consensus over a matter does not mean that it in fact exists, unless it is verified and it is ensured that nothing opposes it. 2. The view of those who permitted wiping on socks as in “Kash-shaaf Al-Qinaa’” (1/111), “(Socks) is a name for everything that is worn on the feet and similar in shape to the Khuff, but not made of leather”. The scholars who permitted wiping on socks are many. Ibn Qudamah said in “Al-Mughni” (1/181), “Ahmad (bin Hanbal) said, ‘Wiping on socks was reported by seven or eight companions of the Messenger of Allah ’”. Ibn Al-Mundhir said, “Nine companions permitted wiping on socks, and they are ‘Ali, Ammar, Ibn Mas’oud, Anas, Ibn ‘Umar, Al-Baraa’, Bilal, Ibn Abi Awfa and Sahl bin Sa’d. Also, At’aa, Al-Hasan, Sa’eed bin Al-Musayyab, Al-Nakhi’e, Sa’eed bin Jubair, Al-A’mash, Al-Thawri, Al-Hasan bin Saleh, Ibn Al-Mubarak, Ishaq, Ya’qoob and Muhammad, all of them permitted wiping on socks”. Imam An-Nawawi said in “Al-Majmoo’” (1/499), “Ibn Al-Mundhir reported that nine companions allowed wiping on socks, such as ‘Ali, Ibn Mas’oud, Ibn ‘Umar, Anas, Ammar bin Yaser, Bilal, Al-Baraa’, Abi Umamah and Sahl bin Sa’d”. Also, Abu Haneefah changed his adopted view before his death and settled on the view of his two companions that it is permitted to wipe on socks, and he wiped on them. In “Al-Mabsoot” (1/102) it states, “According to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, may Allah bestow His mercy upon them, it is allowed to wipe on socks, and it was reported that Abu Haneefah, may Allah bestow His mercy upon him, wiped on his socks during his illness and told his visitors, ‘I have done what I have prevented the people from’. Therefore, they may take this as evidence of his renunciation (of his previous view)”. Ibn Al-Hammam, the leader of the latter Hanafi verifiers, said in “Fathul Qadeer” (1/157) that the official fatwa of the Madhab is that it is permissible to wipe on socks. He said, “It is only allowed to wipe on socks, according to Abu Haneefah, when they are bound or soled with leather. They said, “It is allowed if the socks are thick and not transparent and it was reported that he (Abu Haneefah) changed his view and settled on the view of his two companions, and that is the fatwa in the Madhab”. Also, among the proofs that have been used to support the permissibility of wiping on socks that are not soled with leather is that the Messenger  wiped on socks that were not soled with leather, and we know this from the hadeeth of Al-Mugheerah bin Shu’abah, who reported that “The Prophet wiped on socks and sandals”. Ahmad and Al-Tirmidhi, who said, “It is Hasan Sahih hadeeth”, reported it. Abu Dawud remained silent about it, which means he accepted it. Ibn Majah, Ibn Hibban, Al-Bayhaqi, Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Shaybah also reported this hadeeth, and Ibn Hazm and Al-Albani authenticated it, though some other scholars weakened it. This hadeeth however is supported by other ahadeeth that we will mention in the following part, in addition that the permissibility is proven by a group of the Prophet’s companions. This hadeeth denotes that it is allowed to wipe on socks even in the absence of sandals. Ibn Qudamah said, “This proves that he wore no sandals over the socks, because if they existed, he would have not mentioned them, since one cannot say, ‘I wiped on the Khuff and the sandals’! In addition, the companions, may Allah be pleased with them, wiped on the socks and no one opposed them at the time”. Thawban complained to the Prophet  about the cold that affected him and his soldiers after they returned, and he  advised them to “Wipe over the head covers and foot covers”, reported by Ahmad, Abu Dawud and Al-Hakim. In “Musannaf” of Ibn Abi Shaybah, there is a section dedicated to wiping on socks, and under this section there are many reports stating that Abu Mas’oud used to wipe on his socks, that U’qbah bin ‘Amr wiped on socks made of hair, and that Ibraheem said that socks and sandals take the ruling of Khuff. Additional reports state that Qutada reported that Anas used to wipe on socks, that Abu Ghaleb reported seeing Abu Umamah wiping on his socks, and that Al-Dahhak said that it is fine to wipe on socks. Isma’eel bin Umayah said, “I was told that Al-Baraa bin A’azib, Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas and Sa’eed bin Al-Musayyab permitted wiping on socks, and that ‘Amr bin Murayb reported that ‘Ali made wudu and wiped on his socks, and that Abu Hazim reported that Sahl bin Sa’d wiped on socks”. In the “Musannaf” is also a section titled “Those who say that socks take the ruling of Khuff”, and reports are transmitted from those who said so. At’aa said, “Wiping on socks is similar to wiping on Khuff”. ‘Abbad bin Rashid said, “I asked Nafi’ about wiping on socks, so he said that it is like wiping on Khuff”. Yahya Al-Bakka said, “I heard ibn ‘Umar say, ‘Wiping on socks is similar to wiping on Khuff’”, and this athar was declared Hasan by Al-Albani in his book “Wiping on socks”, page 54. Therefore, the Ijmaa’ (i.e. agreement) of the companions has been transmitted by more than one scholar. Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim said in “Tahdheeb Sunan Abi Dawud” (1/187-189), after counting thirteen companions who permitted wiping on socks, “We do not know of any companion who opposed those we mentioned”. Ibn Qudamah said in ‘Al-Mughni” (1/181), “The companions wiped on socks, and no companion opposed them in this matter; therefore, it becomes a matter of Ijmaa’”. They also support their view by way of analogy, as they negate any difference between leather, wool, cotton, etc. The first who was reported to say that in a clear statement was Al-Dolabi in his book “Al-Kuna wal Asmaa”, who said that Al-Azraq bin Qais said, “I saw Anas bin Malik intending to make wudu after he invalidated his wudu. He washed his face and arms, and then wiped on his socks that were made of wool, so I said, ‘Do you wipe on them?’ He said, ‘They are Khuff but made of wool’”. Scholar Ahmad Shakir authenticated this athar, as stated in the introduction of the treatise about wiping on socks, page 13. Ibn Qudamah said in “Al-Mughni” (1/181), “It is because socks cover the part that is obligatory to wash in wudu, and they remain on the feet without being tied or fastened; therefore, it is permitted to wipe on them just like on sandals”. That is why Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said in “Majmoo’ Al-Fatawa” (21/214), “The difference between socks and sandals is that the former is made of wool, while the latter is made of leather, and it is known that such difference is ineffective in the Shari’ah, for it makes no difference whether the material is leather, cotton or wool, and this is similar to how there is no difference between wearing black or white Ihraam clothes. Leather is used only because it lasts longer than wool; therefore, the difference is ineffective, as much as it is ineffective whether the leather is strong or weak. This is why it is permitted to wipe on both - that which lasts and that which does not. Also, it is known that the need to wipe on this is similar to the need to wipe on that. Thus, as the wisdom and the need behind wiping are equal, there should not be any difference between two similar items, as differentiating between two similar items is unjust and invalid, considering what has been reported in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and what Allah revealed in His books and with what He sent His Messengers. So whoever differentiates between the two is like the one who made the difference between the two due to water seeping through one but not through the other, which is a difference that is irrelevant and ineffective”. As for those who have differentiated between socks and Khuff, they said that socks are not needed (unlike Khuff). Al-Kasani said in “Badaai’ Al-Sanaai’” (1/10), “Wiping is prescribed in order to bring ease, but such ease is prescribed for what people wear often, and socks is not something that people wear often; therefore, there is no need to wipe on them”. The answer to this is that people’s needs differ, and we do not agree that there is no need to wipe on socks, particularly in our era where people work most of the day away from their homes, and the far and the near already know that removing socks for wudu is a great obstacle for those who like to pray on time, and it is not an exaggeration to say that it is an obstacle to pray at all. It was said that socks do not remain on the feet without being tied or fastened, but if we accept this condition - though it is disputed in the Madhab of Ahmad bin Hanbal - it can be argued that some socks remain on the feet without being tied or fastened. Ibn Al-Hammam, the great verifier and one of the latter Hanafi scholars, said in “Fathul Qadeer” (1/157), “They (Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, the two companions of Abu Haneefah) said, “It is allowed with the condition that the socks are thick and resist water - because of what was reported from the Prophet’s actions, and they can be used to walk in because they are thick and because they remain on the feet without being fastened with anything, and so they are similar to Khuff”. Also, it was said that water seeps through socks, and the answer is that this is an irrelevant and ineffective description that does not affect the ruling, and since it is proven to have been practiced by the companions, then obviously such argument cannot stand in the face of that. As for stating the condition that socks must be thick and not thin, then this is also an irrelevant description, because what matters and upon which the ruling is derived is the people’s need to wear socks, and if there was no need they would not wear them, while noting that the definition of thick differs from one person to another. It states in “Al-Mabsoot” (1/102), “Thick socks are what remains on the feet without being fastened with anything”, and that is the case with socks today, and if what is meant with thick is that what is underneath does not show, as in “Al-Mughni” (1/181), then this is also the case with the socks today, though we do not actually admit this condition. The socks of the companions, or most of them, had holes and parts of their feet showed because of that. In response to all these conditions that have been set without proofs, Imam Abu Muhammad ‘Ali bin Hazm said in “Al-Muhallah” (1/336), “It was proven authentic that the Prophet wiped on Khuff and that he wiped on socks, and if there were any criterions to be observed, then he would have not neglected them. Thus, whatever is worn on the feet, whether it is called Khuff or socks, is allowed to wipe on”. People require ease in these recent times when the religion became a strange thing, and when people’s certainty weakened and hardship of Muslims became stronger, and the Prophet  is the one who said, “Make it easy on the people, and do not make it hard”. To end this point, the permissibility of wiping on socks is the correct view that is based on proofs, and advocating ease in matters that are not sinful is the method of the Prophet . This matter is from the branches (of valid disputes), and the least to say is that one finds it valid even if he does not find it correct, particularly that many of the people of knowledge mentioned it, and they have their own proofs - from texts and from analogy - and they have not breached the agreement. 3. The method of the expert people of knowledge while dealing with matters of dispute: The great scholars from the four Madhahib and others were of open heart toward disputes that happened between them, and the further they advanced in knowledge, the more they excused their opponents. Ibn ‘Abdil Barr said in “Jaami’ Al-Uloom wal Hikam” (2/80), “Yahya bin Sa’eed Al-Ansaari said, ‘People of fatwa always differ; some would say it is lawful while others would say it is unlawful, yet none of them deemed their opponents as ruined’”. Ibn Miflih mentioned in ‘Al-Adab Al-Shari’ah” (1/186), “Ahmad said, ‘The jurist should not enforce a Madhab on people, and he should not make it hard on them”, and he commented on it saying, “No one should deny it on someone who made Ijtihad in matters of valid disputes’”. A large number of the people of knowledge reported this. As for not praying behind a Muslim with the excuse that his Salah is invalid, or that his wudu is invalid, or that his Salah is according to a different Madhab, then it is indeed an evil that has no equal, and it is a gate that – if opened - will tear apart what is left from the unity of Muslims, dividing them and causing hatred and enmity among them. Though the scholars disputed much in issues of wudu and Salah, they ensured that none of that should lead to division among Muslims or abandonment of praying behind others. It states in “Majmoo’ Al-Fatawa” (20/364), “Imam Ahmad was asked, ‘If the Imam bled and yet did not make wudu from it, is it valid to pray behind him?’ He said, ‘How can I not pray behind Imam Malik and Sa’eed bin Al-Musayyab?!’”. In the “Tabaqaat” of Hanafi scholars (1/433) it is stated, “Shafi’ee prayed the Fajr in the Masjid of Abu Haneefah, but he did not make Qunoot and he did not recite the Basmallah aloud, out of his respect and politeness for Abu Haneefah, may Allah bestow his mercy upon both of them”. Al-Qurtubi said in his Tafseer (23/375), “Abu Haneefah and his companions, and Al-Shafi’ee and others, pray behind the Imams of the people of Madina, who are from the Maliki scholars, even though they do not recite the Basmallah neither in secret nor loudly, and Abu Yusuf prayed behind Al-Rasheed though he had Hujamah, and Malik gave him the fatwa not to make wudu, so Abu Yusuf prayed behind him in spite of that, and he did not repeat his Salah”. This is in spite of their view that the Salah is invalid without the Basmallah, and perhaps what was mentioned so far from the words and statements of the experts and scholars is enough proof for those who have a sense of reason. And Allah is the One on Whom we rely to unite this Ummah upon one word, so that this Ummah earns His promise of victory. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.