بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Imām Al-Albānī said:
Scholars have also differed on the ruling for someone who removes their khuff (leather socks) and it’s types [such as socks or shoes] after performing wudū and wiping over them. They hold three views:
1. The first view: His wudū remains valid, and there is nothing further required upon him.
2. The second view: He must only wash his feet.
3. The third view: He must repeat the entire wudū.
Groups of the early generations (Salaf) have held each of these views. Imām ‘Abdul-Razzāq recorded narrations from them in his book al-Musannaf (1/210/809-813), as did Ibn Abī Shaybah (1/187-188) and al-Bayhaqī (1/289-290).
Without a doubt, the first opinion is the strongest because it aligns with the permissibility and ease intended by the allowance of wiping given from Allāh. Any other view contradicts this ease, as mentioned by al-Rafi’ī in the previous issue. And what outweighs the argument over the other two are two additional reasons:
1. It is in accordance with the practice of the Rightly Guided Caliph, ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib. We previously cited with a authentic chain that he performed wudū, wiped over his shoes, then removed them, and proceeded to pray.
[T.N: narration of ‘Alī can be found via multiple chains in Sunan al-Kubrā of al-Bayhaqī #1366, Musannaf of ‘Abd al-Razzāq #813, #814, al-Tahāwī in Sharh Ma’ānī al-Āthār #586. On the authority of Abī Dhabyān: He saw ‘Alī urinating whilst standing, then he called for water, performed wudū, wiped over his shoes, then entered the mosque, removed his shoes, and then prayed. In another narration: he prayed the Dhuhr prayer]
2. It agrees with sound reasoning (i.e analogy): if one wipes over the head and then shaves it, they are not required to re-wipe their head, let alone repeat wudū. This view was also chosen by Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, who said in al-Ikhtiyārāt (p. 15): “Removing the khuff or turban does not invalidate the wudū of one who has wiped over it, nor does the expiration of the wiping period (invalidate wudū). Nor is he required to re-wipe the head or wash the feet (upon removing the khuff or turban). And this is the view of Hasan al-Basrī. It is similar to the removal of hair that has been wiped over, according to the sound view from the madhab of Ahmad and the opinion of the majority of scholars.”
And this is the madhab of Ibn Hazm, refer to his detailed discussion and refutation to the opposers in al-Muhallā which is invaluable (2/105-109).
[T.N: Narration of al-Hasan al-Basrī can be found in Musannaf of Ibn Abī Shaybah #1979. al-Hasan used to say: “If someone wipes over his khuffs after minor ritual impurity, then removes them, he remains in a state of purity and may pray”]
As for the narration by Ibn Abī Shaybah (1/187) and al-Bayhaqī (10/289) regarding a Companion of the Prophet (ﷺ) who was asked about someone who wipes over their khuffs and then decides to remove them, he replied, “They should wash their feet.” This narration includes Yazīd ibn Abdul Rahmān al-Dālānī, whom al-Hāfidh [Ibn Hajr] graded as truthful but with frequent errors, and he also used to practice tadlīs (concealing weaknesses in the isnād).
[T.N: The above narration can be found in Sunan al-Kubrā of al-Bayhaqī #1370, #1371, Dar al-Hadīth print; the verifier said in summary: (it is) da’īf: this isnād has a series of defects; in it is ‘Abd as-Salām ibn Harb, who is a hāfidh and thiqah, however he would narrate questionable things which are rejected. Also, his shaykh, Yazīd ibn ‘Abdul Rahmān al-Dālānī has been sufficiently spoken (against) by Ibn Hibbān, the sum of which is that he frequently errs and has much from inconsistencies. Moreover he is a mudallis. And Yahyā ibn Ishāqs hearing from Sa‘īd has been disputed by al-Bukhārī]
Al-Bayhaqī [#1372] also narrated a similar account from Abū Bakrah. Its narrators are trustworthy except for Alī ibn Muhammad al-Qurashī, whom I do not know (of).
Then al-Bayhaqī [#1376] reported from al-Mughīrah ibn Shu’bah marfū (raised to the prophet, that he (ﷺ) said) : “Wiping over the khuffs is for three days and nights for a traveler, and one day and night for a resident, as long as they are not removed.”
He (Al-Bayhaqī) then commented, ‘”Only Umar ibn Rudayh reported this, and he is not strong (in narrating).”
I say: This additional phrase “as long as they are not removed” is objectionable because it is solely reported by this weak narrator and lacks corroborating evidence.”
[T.N: In the Dār al-Hadīth print 1/561, the verifier said in summary: (the narration is) da’īf: Al-Haythamī mentioned it in Majma’ al-Zawā’id [1/585], stating: “It includes ‘Umar ibn Rudayh, whom Abū Hātim deemed weak, while Ibn Ma‘īn considered him reliable in Hadīth.”
I say: The biography of ‘Umar ibn Rudayh can be found in Al-Jarh wa al-Ta‘dīl [6/108], Lisān al-Mīzān [4/306], Thiqāt of Ibn Hibbān [1857], and Thiqāt al-‘Ujaylī [2/165]; it appears he is generally truthful and acceptable in Hadīth, as long as he does not contradict reliable narrators or uniquely report a foundation of a narration with no corroboration.
In this Hadīth, the phrase “as long as they are not removed” is an unusual addition, as reliable narrators have transmitted this hadīth without this phrase. Moreover, this Hadīth has been reported through various chains without this phrase.]
(Jāmī’ al-Turāth of Al-Albānī in Fiqh 1/335-336. Referencing Tamām al-Nash fī Ahkām al-Mash pg. 86-88)
fawaaids.com 