WUDU and Shoes & Socks
David / Amicus
doing their 5 daily prayers. In countries where people are barefoot or
wear sandles I understand the reason for washing the feet.
However where people wear shoes and socks does a person have to remove
them, wash their feet and then put the socks back on? I know a person
can not wear shoes in the mosque.
Thanks!
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:a4ha0v$rdb$1...@samba.rahul.net...
<snip>
> However where people wear shoes and socks does a person have to remove
> them, wash their feet and then put the socks back on? I know a person
> can not wear shoes in the mosque.
>
Wiping the outside of the socks is generally accepted within a 24-hour
period.
--
G. Waleed Kavalec
------------------- I send my heartfelt thanks to the authors of...
http://members.rogers.com/malikelshabazz/swf/thisisislam.swf
Aaliyah Olson-Ahmed
Yes washing the feet still must be done. The word in the Quran actually
means "to wipe" and so some denominations (sects) within Islam wipe the tops
of their feet. Their reasoning for this is because when one goes to the
bathroom (squats) there is a chance that the urine or water will splash up
onto the top of the foot. Many Muslims simply wash their feet completely up
the ankle because Wudu is more than just a physical cleanliness. It's a
spiritual one.
Hope this helps!
Aaliyah
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:a4ha0v$rdb$1...@samba.rahul.net...
Syed
> "David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:a4ha0v$rdb$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> <snip>
> > However where people wear shoes and socks does a person have to remove
> > them, wash their feet and then put the socks back on? I know a person
> > can not wear shoes in the mosque.
> >
>
>
> Wiping the outside of the socks is generally accepted within a 24-hour
> period.
Thats after doing wudu and putting your socks on soon after doing
wudu. Ie your feet inside the socks must be clean, if not then wiping
the outside is not acceptable. Also if your feet have sweated quite a
lot (as far as you know) then you must take them off also, well that
what ive been told, the sweat thing is just precautionary
asimm...@yahoo.com
Peace be upon you,
Their is an allowance for this. If a person makes wudhu, washing his
feet, than puts his socks and shoes on while in the state of wudhu, he
may wipe over them as an expression of cleanliness. This is known as
'masah'. This grace period is one day, and if travelling it extends
to three days.
Peace
Steadfast
if I may shed a light on this explanation from the following verse in the
Quran one can see that
Wudu
is washing
Face
and hands (arms) upto elbows
rub your heads
and ...wash/rub...Feet till ankles
the order is that you start to wash face first (that includes mouth and
nose) (once is minimum up to three times maximum to make sure of full
coverage)
then you rub the head which includes ears (once since full coverage is not
needed)
now the feet is the last action
because it is last and after the head and ears
a minority group take it that it should follow the head so it is with rub
like the head (in this case rub once the upper face of the foot)
but the majority agree that the popular grammatical rule is aligned with
wash the hands but the order is after head
(again once is minimum up to three times maximum to make sure of full
coverage)
Q(5:6) O Ye who believe when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and
your hands (and arms) to the elbows; rub your heads (with water); and (wash)
your feet to the ankles. if ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bath
your whole body. but if ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh
from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find
no water, then take for yourselves clean sands or earth, and rub therewith
your faces and hands. God doth not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to
make you clean, and to complete his favour to you, that ye ay be grateful.
but for ease purposes rubbing once over the top of socks and (also shoes)
during 24 hours while not traveling
and three days while traveling
(the condition is that the socks or shoes were worn after a valid wudu)
(posted to SRI and copy by mail)
"Aaliyah Olson-Ahmed" <aaliya...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:a4jv4b$e27$1...@samba.rahul.net...
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:a4lvit$prs$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> However, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the following two
> extremes:
>
> 1. Rejecting EVERYTHING other than the Qur`an, and
>
> 2. Accepting ALL (and I mean ALL) ahadith and give them (or at least
> give the impression, as is done by some Tablighees when they read
> ahadith and stories of the Companions of the Prophet from their
> 'Tablighee Nisaab') equal level of authenticity.
Br. Anjum
I do not claim to be a Rasool. I reported to the poster what I have seen
with my own eyes. No more and no less.
That being said let me clarify one thing: I am a long, long way from being
learned enough to say this school of thought is right or that school of
thought. I do not say reject all ahadith; I do not say accept all ahadith.
I simply and humbly accept the Qur'an FIRST and foremost.
If a practice, custom, or hadith contradicts the Qur'an, I follow the
Qur'an. Simple, straight, no arguments.
All of the ahadith in all in the masjids and all of the libraries in the
world placed on the left side of the scale of truth will weigh less than one
ayat of the Quran placed on the right. And that scale is just.
Because all Truth comes from The Just.
Salaam
--
G. Waleed Kavalec
-------------------
Do not act in response to how you wish the world was.
Act in response to how the world is.
Don Khan
prophet Muhammed as an example. There has never been any doubt that the
prophet is an example for us to follow. If we had the patience of prophet
Muhammed then muslims would be in a better position today.
The issue I think is the authenticity of hadith. Do we really know as a
fact that the hadith that we have today describes exactly what the prophet
did. The point is that with all of the alleged corruption of hadith we
must decide if we should follow the hadith at a risk of propogating lies,
forbidding what is not forbidden, and making halal what is forbidden.
What should we do when faced with a questionable thing like hadith.
rj...@mailandnews.com
there is a nice discussion on this topic at http://al-islam.org/masail/
chapter 5, here is an excerpt:
The wiping on the slippers and socks
The jurists of Islam have differed greatly on the [question of] wiping on
slippers and socks, [differences] which can not be
covered in this haste. In short, the discussion on it is connected with the
question of its permissibility and non-permissibility and
on limiting and defining its position. It [also] pertains to its
characteristics, its timing, its prerequisites and [on what] destroys it.
As for it being permissible, there are three views:
1) Always allowed whether one is travelling or at home.
2) Permissible when travelling, not when at home.
3) Not allowed at all as it has not been regulated in religion. The three views
are narrated from the first generation and from
Malik.
As for defining its position, they have also differed on it. There are those who
say that it is obligatory to wipe the upper part [of
the slipper] and that the wiping on the lower part is recommended. [Others]
state that it is obligatory to wipe the outer and the
inner parts. The third view is that it is obligatory to wipe the outer rather
than the inner part, for the wiping of the inner part is
neither obligatory nor recommended. There are those who say that one can choose
between wiping the inner and the upper
part, whichever you wipe becomes obligatory.
As for the type of position, those who say [it is necessary] to wipe on the
slippers have differed on the wiping on the socks,
some have allowed it others have disallowed it.
As for the description of the slipper, they have differed on the
[permissibility] of wiping on torn slippers. Some have allowed
wiping on it as long as it can [still] be called a slipper even if it's tear is
excessive. Amongst them are those who have not
allowed the front part of the slipper to be torn whereby the foot, however
little, may be visible. Some of them have allowed
wiping on it provided the tear is little.
As for it's timing, they have disagreed on it [too]. Some have said there is no
time [fixed] for it and that the wearer of the
slippers can wipe on them as long as he has not removed them or he has not
become ritually impure. Some have stated that
there is a special time for that (the mash) for those at home, those travelling
have a different time, they have also differed on the
description of a journey and [definition] of the distance.
As for the conditions of wiping on the slippers, it is that when wearing the
slippers the feet must be pure by performing the ritual
ablution (wudu). This is a condition which most of them have imposed. However,
it has been narrated from Malik that this is
not a condition. They have disagreed on the question of one who has washed his
feet, worn his slippers and then completed his
wudu; is his washing of the feet sufficient for him before he wears them or must
he wipe them? They have two views on this.
As for different [things] breaking the [act of] wiping, one of them is the
removal of the slippers. A group has stated that the
purity remains if he removes the slippers until something which breaks the
ablution occurs, he does not have to wash his feet.
Others have said that his purity is broken by his mere removal of the slippers.
Others still have said that his purity remains if he
washes his feet after removing his slippers. If he prays without washing them
then he has to repeat the prayer after washing
them. [They have] other differing views and contradictory verdicts on that which
pertain to the wiping on the slippers, it is not
our intention to discuss the details now.
As for the Imamis, following their predecessors - following the Imams of the
pure family - [their view] is that they do not allow
the wiping on the slippers, whether that be at home or on a journey. For our
proof, the saying of the Almighty is sufficient. He
said: "And wipe your heads and feet to the anklebones." This [verse] imposes the
obligation of wiping on the feet themselves.
Where did the wiping on the slippers come from? Has this verse been abrogated?
Or is it ambiguous? Never, on the contrary -
and this is unanimously agreed upon - it is amongst the unambiguous verses which
are [part of] the mother of the book. The
exegetes are agreed that there is no abrogation in the chapter of Ma'ida
(chapter 5) which includes the verse on the wudu
except for one verse "O you who believe, do not violate the sanctity of the
symbols of God (5:2)." Some of them have claimed
that it, not other verses of the blessed chapter, have been abrogated.
As for the traditions which indicate the permissibility of wiping on the
slippers, they do not prove anything according to our
conditions. We have shown their weaknesses. Additionally there are [other]
considerations:
1) They are opposed to the book of God, the Almighty and Glorious. It has been
reported from the Prophet of God (P) that he
said: "If a hadith is reported to you from me then compare it with the book of
God. If it agrees to it then accept it, otherwise
reject it."
2) They (the traditions) contradict themselves, therefore many differences have
arisen amongst those authenticating them, acting
on what they require, as you have noted. What we have indicated recently is that
they have differed on their verdicts as they
(the traditions) contradict themselves since they are the sources for their (the
jurists') rulings.
3) The consensus of the Imams of the pure family (`Ali and his sons, the
legatees) on the ruling of not permitting the mash
(wiping) on any obstacle whether it be [in the form of] slippers, socks and
shoes or other types [of materials], their traditions
clearly contradict the traditions of the masses which indicate the
permissibility of doing so. The ruling that is established
concerning contradictory traditions is to prefer what agrees with the book of
God, the Almighty, Glorious. This applies if they
are equal as regards to their isnad and proofs. How can the weighty [thing] from
the Prophet of God (P), the other half of the
book of God, the most High, the ships of salvation of the umma and the door of
[reducing the] burden of it's sins and its [the
umma's] safety from differences be equal [to these traditions]?
4) If this [wiping on the slippers] was true, then it would have been
successively transmitted at all times and places. This is
because the need to know the purity of the feet in the wudu is a general one -
as we have said before - for the men and women
of the umma. It is a basic need for them every day and night whether they are at
home or on a journey. If the verse meant "not
wiping" then those abiding by the shari'a would have known it at the time of
Prophecy and after it. It would have been an
established thing amongst them in all generations especially as it is coming in
devotional worship whose meaning is not rationally
derived. [The fact that] it is alien to the act of worship would necessitate it
being well-known due to its strangeness. Since the
matter is not so, the weakness of these invalid and baseless traditions becomes
clear to us.
5) Assuming that this [wiping on the slippers] is correct, there should have
been an abrogating [verse] to the verse of
al-Ma`ida, since this is the last chapter that was revealed. By it, Allah
perfected His religion and completed His blessings and
He was pleased with Islam as His religion. Its obligations are obligatory to the
day of resurrection; its prohibitions are forbidden
to the day of resurrection. Just as the mother of the faithful, `A'isha, said to
Jubayr b. Nafir - when he performed the pilgrimage
and visited her - "O Jubayr, do you recite the Ma'ida?" He said: "Yes." She
said: "It is the last chapter which has been
revealed, what you find permitted in it then consider it as halal, what you find
forbidden in it then prohibit it."
The masses stubbornly cling to the ruling of mash on the slippers [even] after
its revelation due to the hadith of Jarir: He
urinated, then he performed the ablution and wiped on his slippers. It was said
to him: "Do you do this?" He said: "Yes, I saw
the Prophet of God (P) urinating and then performing the ablution and wiping on
his slippers." Muslim reported it and he also
reported that this hadith surprised them because the conversion of Jarir was
after the revelation of the Ma'ida.
I say: On the contrary, his conversion was before the revelation of the Ma'ida.
The proof of this is his presence at the farewell
pilgrimage with the Prophet of God. He (P) asked him on that day - as is in the
biographical profiles of al-Isaba, reporting from
the two Sahihs - that he should ask the people to hear [the sermon]. So his
conversion must have occurred before that
pilgrimage, and the revelation of the Ma'ida certainly did not occur before
that.
Furthermore, al-Tabrani reported from Jarir - as reported in the profile of
al-Isaba - he said: "The Prophet of God (P) said:
`Your brother al-Najashi has died.'" The death of al-Najashi occurred before the
revelation of al-Ma'ida for there is no doubt
that he died before 10 A.H.
Al-Qastalani has another strange stubbornness: He says - about wiping on the
slippers - the mash is not abrogated by the
hadith of al-Mughira. The Prophet's (P) wiping on his slippers is clear in the
battle of Tabuk and it was his last battle and the
Ma'ida was revealed before it during the expedition of al-Marisi'.
I say: The expedition of al-Marisi' was also the expedition of the Banu
Mustaliq, they occurred on the second night of Sha'ban
in the fifth year, some say in the fourth year as is [reported] by al-Bukhari
from Ibn `Uqba. Al-Nawawi also followed this in his
al-Rawda. It has been said that it occurred in 6 A.H. After it, sura al-Ma'ida
and many other chapters were revealed. The
verse on tayammum was revealed during it (the expedition). This is the saying of
the most High in sura al-Nisa' (chapter 4): "If
you are sick or on a journey or if you go for a call of nature or if you have
gone into your women and you do not find any water
then perform the tayammum on pure earth and wipe on your faces and hands, God is
most forgiving, kind (4:43)."
The report on this is established from `A'isha, it is reported by al-Wahidi in
his book [entitled] Asbab al-Nuzul (occasions of
revelations), so refer to it so that you are sure that al-Qastalani mistook the
verse on ablution with the verse on tayammum.
Moreover, we do not depend on al-Mughira and Jarir, soon you will know what we
have discovered about al-Mughira. Jarir
had behaved with the legatees (of the Prophet of God) in a manner which makes us
doubt about him too.
6) The mother of the faithful `A'isha - despite her status with the sunna and
her astuteness and despite her location where
revelation descended and was legislated - would strictly forbid the wiping on
the slippers. Ibn `Abbas - he was the scribe of the
umma and the receptacle of the book and sunna, this cannot be denied - was also
amongst those who severely refuted it. Both
of them refuted it to the utmost possible degree. Why don't you examine her
statements with me? [She said] "Because cutting
my feet is more beloved to me than wiping on the slippers." He (Ibn `Abbas)
said: "Wiping on the skin of a donkey is more
beloved to me than wiping on the slippers."
Can you reconcile this form of rejection with those traditions? Never, given her
status, they can never be reconciled. If these
are the statements reported orally from her, by those who know the lean and fat
[of traditions], how is it possible for us to rely
on them given our remote distance from them (the traditions) over centuries and
generations?
One who examines, without prejudices, the repudiation [of mash] by those close
to the Prophet of God (S.A.W.) like his wife
and his cousin and all the guided leaders from his family, he would be compelled
to doubt those traditions.
>From this, you will know that the claim that they (the traditions on wiping on
the slippers) have been successively transmitted is
extravagant and [mere] speculation. Can they reach the level of tawatur (i.e.
successively transmitted by many chains of
authority) whilst these pious notables be ignorant? Or are they ignorant of the
traditions? Glory be to you, this is a great
accusation.
If they were successively transmitted, then `Abd Allah b. `Umar would not have
refuted them nor would Imam Malik in one of
the two traditions reported from him, nor would any other upright, upright
believing predecessor refute it.
Those who have done complete injustice have said: "I fear unbelief for one who
does not wipe on his slippers." It has been seen
that the mash on the slippers is not a part of religion, nor is it amongst the
essentials of it's derivatives nor is it something which
the book has imposed nor is it - by the consensus of the umma - what the sunna
has made obligatory. Rather, it is merely a
dispensation for a part of the Muslim community. Is there any blame for one who
does not practise it [acting instead] in
accordance with what the verse on wudu has imposed? The people of the qibla have
agreed on the correctness of the acts
which it (the verse) dictates and have agreed on the permissibility of the
prayer by that. On the other hand, the correctness of
the wudu, the removal of uncleanness and the permissibility of prayer by it
(i.e. by wiping on the slippers) is a point of dispute
between the Muslims. Can disbelief be feared from one who observes caution? What
is your view of `A'isha, `Ali, Ibn `Abbas
and all the ahl al-bayt since they did not observe the wiping on the slippers, O
Muslims?
Steadfast
All Muslims take the Quarn First, (at least majority, majority of sunnis do)
who ever told you otherwise is wrong
and all such Muslims would also agree if any ruling contradicts Quran
is false even if it comes from Hadith
but we have to be knowledgeable enough in order to make that distinction
and produce a judgment
Quran is a sea of knowledge and it is for all generations of Humanity
so it is written in a way to fit all
so such a miraculous Quran require deep knowledge to deduce rulings from it
we all agree that Quran is for all to read and get a spiritual experience and guidance
but it is not for all to extract jurispondance this requires specialized scholars of different sciences
a geologist will be able to see what you and can not see
a physician, biologist, or any scientist is the same
similarly law people can find many marvels in law
hadith scholars are but from those
no one is perfect all make mistakes but this no reason to deny
this is the miracle of the Quran as many other things
so we have to respect this and give the people of specialty to do their job
while we enjoy the spiritual experience because this is for every body each at his level.
"G. Waleed Kavalec" <kav...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a4qe0k$m78$1...@samba.rahul.net...
Steadfast
I have noticed that Quran Only people vary in the degree of giving importance to Mohammad
but they are contradicting themselves without knowing it
it is lie the Khalifites they accept that the Quran was preserved but then they destroy the whole
preservation claim by their claim of the two false verses and they build their argument on Hadith while they reject hadith
altogether
they give some twisted argument to justify preserved and having two false verses
not knowing that it is God that said we will preserving it
this is a universal Godly Order (he did not say we expect you to preserve it, we ask you to preserve it)
no He said We (God) will preserve it
If God's Supreme order is not passed I do not know what will
Similarly Quran Only do claim that they respect the prophet
and accept the special position of the prophet and that the prophet was an example to us
(although some would explain in a twisted way also)
but they also forget that when God said obey the prophet
and also said the prophet is example for you
then they claim that we can not trust anything that was said about the prophet so we reject it all
in other words they will tell God on the day of Judgment
O God we know that you told us to follow the prophet but there was nothing to follow
so who is mocking who now
for the truth seeker authentic prophet seera and hadith exists for the people who want to ponder.
"Don Khan" <dk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:1vFb8.4050$jj4.6...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net...
JJ
> them, wash their feet and then put the socks back on? I know a person
> can not wear shoes in the mosque.
salam aleykum
if you are going to wipe over the socks, I think there are certain
conditions, such as;
the socks must be in a condition that will be tear by walking three miles or
kms in them.
they should prevent water coming in easily(e.g. leather). if I am wrong
please correct me.
Allah knows best.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> As for the Imamis, following their predecessors - following the Imams of the
> pure family - [their view] is that they do not allow
> the wiping on the slippers, whether that be at home or on a journey. For our
> proof, the saying of the Almighty is sufficient. He
> said: "And wipe your heads and feet to the anklebones." This [verse] imposes the
> obligation of wiping on the feet themselves.
Wa salaam
This is actually based upon a faulty reading of the Quran. The
standrda reading according to the Qurayshi dialect, in which the Quran
was revealed, is arjulaKUM, not arjulakim. The first means
specifically to wash, while the second means to wipe.
The Quran itself rejects the second meaning, when it further clarifies
the type of washing through the words "il al-kabayn", which means upto
the ankles. The arabic word for wiping is actually masah, and it is a
symbolic expression of the cleanliness that ccanot be attained for
various reasons, such as lack of water. The Quran does not specify
how much to wipe with respect to the hands and face, whenever it
refers to masah:
And if you find no water then take for yourselves clean sand or earth
and rub therewith your hands and faces. (4:43) This point is also
clarified in the above verse 5:7, when the Quran says to perform masah
on the head, but does not specify the extent of the wiping. The point
behind this is that it is symbolic for cleansing the head. That is
why our Prophet was reported to have reminded some Companions to
cleanse the feet thoroughly.
So, our shia friend can cliam that this was the established practice
of the imams of ahl-bayt, but we will contradictict him on this very
point, that it was NOT the practice of Ali, Hasan, Husain, or any of
the pious predecessors to even wipe.
The rest of his claims are self-redundant. If masah was allowed on
the feet, than it should be allowed on the slippers. The purpose of
masah is a symbolic expression of cleanliness, as clarified in surah
4:43, whether the lack of washing is due to circumstances such as
illness, lack of water, or travelling. One can symbolically express
the cleanliness of the feet by merely wiping on the slippers, just as
wiping on the feet. It is also established, and one can refer to
fiqh-us-sunnah, that the Prophet (S) allowed the wiping of the turban
to express the masah of the head. Once again, this is because it is
symbolic of cleanliness.
Wa salaam
Sandar
ALL of this seems to be rituals to me. I can see washing as a
requirement back then where people are covered with dirt all over and
in countries nowadys where living conditions is not as good as, say
US, to keept themsevles clean.
Checking the socks for the sweat level sound silly to me since
inside human body, there are alot dirtier thing that reside. I am not
saying that one should go ahead with sweaty socks. Whay not rinse the
feet out, INSTEAD OF WIPING, not to mention 3 times, etc.
How would 3 times guarantee that the feet is clean now? beside, we
have fuacet with running water and so where does this 3 times fit?
the way I see it, it fits as &ritual performance*.
I think that as long as people have taken a bath for the day and
keep themselves not get dirty (with the real dirty things like urine,
etc.; NOT SWEAT because after all, we have sweat in the armpit and
WUDU doesn't say anythign about wiping that out), then people should
not need WUDU like one would need in a country where people stay
barefoot and there is no air conditioning in the house, and dirts
(brought by the wind blowing thorough the windows) get into the house.
rj...@mailandnews.com
it appears that you haven't read chapter 5 of the link:
http://al-islam.org/masail/
according to Fakhruddeen Razi in his Tafseer of 5:6 whether we read the word as
arjulakum or arjulikum (not arjulakim as you seem to have mixed up?) they BOTH lead to
wiping of the feet.
as far as your saying that the wiping is only symbolic etc, that is laughable. we
have no right to say that it is only symbolic of purity unless Allah and His Messenger
said so. There is no room for guess work in our religion.
The sequence of the verse is enough to show that wiping the feet is the order and not
washing the feet. Even the Sunni translations put the word "Wash" in brackets. Why?
005.006
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your
hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to
the ankles.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer, wash you faces, and your hands
up to the elbows, and lightly rub your heads and (wash) your feet up to the ankles.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and your hands
as far as the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles;
the above link quotes several sunni authorities that concede that the apparent meaning
of the Qur'an is wiping the feet and not washing the feet regardless of "feet" being
in the accusative or genitive case. The problem is that some schools have perferred a
few traditions over the apparent meaning of the Qur'an.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> salaam 'alaykum bro 'Asim,
>
> it appears that you haven't read chapter 5 of the link:
> http://al-islam.org/masail/
>
> according to Fakhruddeen Razi in his Tafseer of 5:6 whether we read the word as
> arjulakum or arjulikum (not arjulakim as you seem to have mixed up?) they BOTH lead to
> wiping of the feet.
>
Salaam
First, the writing was a typo, not a mix up.
Second, the opinion is wrong. Not only that, the Quran further
clarified the washing when it describes that the washing is upto the
ankles. The opinion of Razi, even if it is faithfully transmitted, is
rejected by the Quran itself.
You missed the whole argument. But it is no surprise, that you
intentionally snipped these portions out.
Third, in the QURAYSHI dialect, the language of the Quran, arjulakum
means WASHING.
> as far as your saying that the wiping is only symbolic etc, that is laughable. we
> have no right to say that it is only symbolic of purity unless Allah and His Messenger
> said so. There is no room for guess work in our religion.
>
First, when the opinion is not in accordance with his school, he
throws reason right out the window. When it accord with his school,
he'll be the first to promote reason. Khu'i, the famous shia scholar,
>from what I remember demolishes the arguments alleging the claim that
the Quran was compiled during Abu Bakr's (R) time, and not the
Prophet's, through sound rational arguments.
Is our friend going to reject these arguments?
Second, it is not hard to determine that masah is a symbolic
expression of cleanliness. The verse in surah 4 describes the purpose
of MASAH, as do the subsequent verse. Does one think that one is
actually cleansing oneself when he performs 'tayammum'? Or is he
expressing the symbolic nature of cleanliness because he has "lack of
water, travelling, or an illness"? I don't think any sound, rational,
and thinking person would reject such a statement and consider it
'guesswork'.
> The sequence of the verse is enough to show that wiping the feet is the order and not
> washing the feet.
No, the sequence of the verse has nothing to do with wiping. It is
expressed in that order because it is done in that order.
Linguistically, the sequence is irrelevant to whether one washes the
feet or wipes the feet.
<Even the Sunni translations put the word "Wash" in brackets. Why?>
There is NO WIPE before the feet either. The washing of the feet is
the completion of the act. "Wash your faces and hands up to the
elbows, and perform MASAH of your heads; and your feet up to the
ankles."
The washing of the feet is known through both arjulAkum and the
specification of how much to wipe.
>
> the above link quotes several sunni authorities that concede that the apparent meaning
> of the Qur'an is wiping the feet and not washing the feet regardless of "feet" being
> in the accusative or genitive case. The problem is that some schools have perferred a
> few traditions over the apparent meaning of the Qur'an.
Uh, NO. The meaning of the Quran is obvious. The Quran further
rejcts your argument when it specifices HOW MUCH to wash. When
referring to MASAH, the Quran never does. Notice even the washing of
the hands.
ilal maraafiqi, wash your arms UPTO THE ELBOWS.
ilal ka bayn, your feet UPTO THE ANKLES.
No matter how much you insist on perpetuating it, the sunnah of those
that wash the feet are in accordance with the Quran, and so is the
transmittion of the generations that have washed their feet.
Wa salaam
rj...@mailandnews.com
here is an extract from Puya's commentary that i thought some would find interesting:
Aqa Mahdi Puya says:
Those who wipe the whole head with a wet hand and wash the feet instead of wiping them with
the wet hands do not take into consideration that which the ba in biru-usikum implies.
In tayammum, again due to the possessive particle ba in biwujuhikum, only a portion of the
face and the hands have to be wiped-the parts which have to be washed in wudu are wiped in
tayammum, and the parts which are wiped in wudu are omitted in tayammum.
http://www.al-islam.org/quran/
asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> First, the writing was a typo, not a mix up.
> Second, the opinion is wrong. Not only that, the Quran further
> clarified the washing when it describes that the washing is upto the
> ankles. The opinion of Razi, even if it is faithfully transmitted, is
> rejected by the Quran itself.
> You missed the whole argument. But it is no surprise, that you
> intentionally snipped these portions out.
>
> Third, in the QURAYSHI dialect, the language of the Quran, arjulakum
> means WASHING.
sometimes a typo can make a big difference. that one typo of yours made your whole
paragraph unintelligable.
who are you compared to Fakhruddeen Razi? Is your mastery of the arabic language even
1/10th of his?
i don't think i have missed any part of your argument.
your saying that arjulakum in the Qurayshi dialect means washing is absurd.
Furthermore there are many traditions in Sunni references from Ibn 'Abbas that the verse
speaks of two washes and two wipings. As you know Ibn 'Abbas was a Qurayshi as well as a
Hashimi.
you can find these traditions in Durr al Manthur of Jalaluddeen Suyuti at
http://muhaddith.org/ under the commentary of 5:6
if one doesn't know arabic well enough he/she may read up about it at:
http://al-islam.org/masail/5.htm
here is another extract:
What is reported from the savant of the umma and the receptacle of the book and the sunna,
`Abd Allah b. `Abbas is
sufficient to refute the [act of] washing and the weak traditions [on washing]. He was
arguing for the wiping and would say
"Allah has imposed two washings and two wipings, don't you see that when He mentioned the
tayammum, He imposed two
wipings instead of the two washings and he left the two wipings of the wudu [as they were]?"
He used to say that the wudu consists of two washings and two wipings and when he learnt
that al-Rabi`, the daughter of
Ma'udh b. `Afra al-Ansariyya, claims that the Prophet used to do the wudu at her place and
he would wash his feet, he came
to her and asked her about it. When she related it to him he said - not verifying but
repudiating and arguing - "the people
refused [everything] but the washing whereas I do not find in the book of God anything but
the wiping."
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Third, in the QURAYSHI dialect, the language of the Quran, arjulakum
> means WASHING.
>
The statement should actually read Third, in the Qurayshi dialect,
where the word arjulAKUM is used, leads to the washing of the feet.
The other case, arjulIKUM, is genitive, or possessive is rejected
based upon the Quran itself when it specifies the extent to which the
feet are washed.
There are two main points behind the argument:
1. Arjulakum is the standard reading of the Qurayshi dialect. It is
no longer a genitive.
2. The specification of how much to wipe. Redundancy in the Quran
would be present if arjulIKUM were the case.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Those who wipe the whole head with a wet hand and wash the feet instead of wiping them with
> the wet hands do not take into consideration that which the ba in biru-usikum implies.
> In tayammum, again due to the possessive particle ba in biwujuhikum, only a portion of the
> face and the hands have to be wiped-the parts which have to be washed in wudu are wiped in
> tayammum, and the parts which are wiped in wudu are omitted in tayammum.
> http://www.al-islam.org/quran/
>
Reread the verse:
Notice that biwujuhIKUM is a genetive case in the verse on tayammum.
Not only that, when the Quran makes reference to the hands, it to is
in the genetive. The possession in the case of 5:6, bi ruusIKUM is
known. Nobody is arguing over that and commentator got that portion
right. Also, the extent to which the wiping in tayammum is done is
NOT specified.
Reread verse 5:6
"faghsiloo wujuuhAKUM wa aydeeyAKUM ilal maraafiqi wamsahuu bi
ruusIKUM wa arjilAKUM ilal ka' bayn."
Notice that the only gentive case is in reference to the wiping of the
head. Even in the case of the feet, it is not genitive. This is
further clarified when the EXTENT of the washing is made known.
To claim that arjilAkum and arjilIkum do not make a difference is
absurd.
I need to make a clarification though:
1. I should not have used the word Qurayshi dialect, but the variant
reading is arjilikum.
2. The reading for arjilAkum, is the standard transmission of the
Quran, the language of Quraysh. I do not believe in the variant
readings anyways and find them unacceptable. But I am asserting that
the other reading is rejected by the Quran itself.
> Furthermore there are many traditions in Sunni references from Ibn 'Abbas that the verse
> speaks of two washes and two wipings. As you know Ibn 'Abbas was a Qurayshi as well as a
> Hashimi.
>
There are many sunni references, authentic, that demonstrate that the
feet are to be washed thoroughly. There are many things attributed to
ibn Abbass (R) which are not authentic. In fact, the majority of
commentary attributed to him is nothing but falsehood, i.e. the famous
tafseer ibn Abbass.
> you can find these traditions in Durr al Manthur of Jalaluddeen Suyuti at
> http://muhaddith.org/ under the commentary of 5:6
> if one doesn't know arabic well enough he/she may read up about it at:
> http://al-islam.org/masail/5.htm
>
> here is another extract:
>
> What is reported from the savant of the umma and the receptacle of the book and the sunna,
> `Abd Allah b. `Abbas is
> sufficient to refute the [act of] washing and the weak traditions [on washing]. He was
> arguing for the wiping and would say
> "Allah has imposed two washings and two wipings, don't you see that when He mentioned the
> tayammum, He imposed two
> wipings instead of the two washings and he left the two wipings of the wudu [as they were]?"
>
So he quotes a reference from Suyuti (R), but not from any of the six
books of sunni ahadeeth. Suyuti (R) quotes many weak ahadeeth and I
hardly believe taht was his position anyways. Besides that, can one
honestly believe ibn Abbass (R) to make such an argument?
There is no literary analysis to even back up the assertion and the
argument is purely logical. You are arguing that ibn Abbass held this
position based upon literary grounds and this narration, which is
rejected, is nothing but a logical argument. In wudhu, according to
this narration, one washes his face and hands up to the elbows, and
wipes his feet and head.
Tayammum is based upon merely wiping those portions that one washes in
wudhu. This is not the case as the Quran illustrates. The purpose of
tayammum is a symbolic expression of cleanliness because of lack of
water, illness, or travelling. Now if anything, one can only wonder
why the wiping of the head and feet are not included in tayammum, if
one only wipes them. Not only that, the Quran still specifies the
extent one goes to wash the feet.
The Quran says in reference to tayammum to wipe the hands. Nowhere
does it specify that this wiping is done upto the elbows. When the
Quran mentions the washing of the hands in wudhu, it specifies the
length to wash. The Quran does the same with the feet when it
mentions how much to wash.
Everybody in the whole Muslim ummah was performing wudhu by washing
their feet. Why would ibn Abbass be surprised and seek verification
of a practice that everybody was doing? Did it all of the sudden come
to his notice this issue? For the time he spent with the Prophet (S),
he did not see him wiping or washing his feet? The incredibility
people go to in their uncritical acceptance of ahadeeth when they need
to find justification for their own opinion.
Wa salaam
rj...@mailandnews.com
first would like to explain the difference between saying MasaHahu and MasaHa bihi.
MasaHahu mean to wipe the whole of something
MasaHaha bihi means to wipe a part of something.
now coming back to the verse 5:6
"wamsaHuu biru uusikum wa arjulakum ilal ka'bayn"
i did not say that if we read it as arjulakum or arjulikum that they both mean the same thing. i
said that whether we read it is arjulakum or arjulikum they both lead to wiping. In fact it is
Fakhrudeen Razi and several other Sunni commentators that have also said it.
If we read it as arjulikum (in the genitive)it would mean "Wipe a part of your heads and wipe a
part of your feet to the instep"
If we read it as arjulakum (in the accusative) it would mean "Wipe a part of your heads and your
feet to the instep."
For those that insist that the accusative means to wash the feet I pose the following question.
How would you translate this sentence?
"Qabiltu Wajha Zayd wa raasahu wa MasaHtu bikatafihi wa yadahu"
would you translate it as:
a/ I kissed the face of Zayd and his head and I touch a part of his shoulder and his hand
or
b/I kissed the face of Zayd and his head and I touched a part of his shoulder and I kissed his
hand.
I am confident that anyone with sound intelligence would select translation a/ and not b/. If
someone were to say the sentence and imply by it b/ it would be grossly uneloquent and evasive.
The speech of God is the most eloquent and clear.
Coming back to the issue of MasH,
we find that in the second part of the verse where Tayammum is addressed MasH is used with the
particle "bi" and that is why we wipe a part of our faces but after that aydeekum is read in the
genitive because a part of the hands is also wiped and not the whole arm. If we read it as
aydiyakum (in the accusative it would mean the whole arm should be wiped).
>from the apparent meaning of the verse 5:6 it says that there are two washings and two wipings in
wudu
and in tayammum there are two wipings.
in the absence of water the two wipings of wudu are dropped and the washings of the face and
hands are replaced with wiping (tayammum).
asimm...@yahoo.com
> How would you translate this sentence?
>
> "Qabiltu Wajha Zayd wa raasahu wa MasaHtu bikatafihi wa yadahu"
>
> would you translate it as:
> a/ I kissed the face of Zayd and his head and I touch a part of his shoulder and his hand
> or
> b/I kissed the face of Zayd and his head and I touched a part of his shoulder and I kissed his
> hand.
>
First of all, this is not English. You are not doing any justice to
your position. If Razi said that it could lead to wiping, he ALSO
said it could lead to washing. It is accepted by ALL commentators
that these verse according to linguistic grounds LEAD to washing.
Acceptance of one, does not mean denial of the other.
Second, the MASAH of the heads, can be akin to what is called a
parenthetical phrase. This is allowed in allowed in Arabic.
> I am confident that anyone with sound intelligence would select translation a/ and not b/. If
> someone were to say the sentence and imply by it b/ it would be grossly uneloquent and evasive.
> The speech of God is the most eloquent and clear.
>
God did not reveal the Quran in ENGLISH. He revealed it in Arabic.
And you are right He is the Most eloquent and the clear. If it was
wiping, than the Book of God can be accused of REDUNDANCY.
> Coming back to the issue of MasH,
>
> we find that in the second part of the verse where Tayammum is addressed MasH is used with the
> particle "bi" and that is why we wipe a part of our faces but after that aydeekum is read in the
> genitive because a part of the hands is also wiped and not the whole arm. If we read it as
> aydiyakum (in the accusative it would mean the whole arm should be wiped).
>
No it wouldn't. Genetive means POSSESSIVE, it is owned by the action.
It is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO HOW MUCH SHOULD BE WIPED. The action is
OWNED by the MASAH, thus it is read in genetive. So tell me, from the
previous commentary that you quoted:
In tayammum, again due to the possessive particle ba in biwujuhikum,
only a portion of the
face and the hands have to be wiped-the parts which have to be washed
in wudu are wiped in
tayammum, and the parts which are wiped in wudu are omitted in
tayammum.
According to him, only a PORTION has to be wiped because of the
possessive article. It has nothing to DO with the fact that the hands
are NOT in genetive form.
Also, when the Quran uses aydiyakum, i.e. in the non-genetive form, it
SPECIFIES HOW much to wipe. That is not merely indicated from the
ACCUSATIVE. So when the Quran does not recognize that the accusative
means the whole arm, then why do you?
Wa salaam
rj...@mailandnews.com
asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>First of all, this is not English. You are not doing any justice to
> your position. If Razi said that it could lead to wiping, he ALSO
> said it could lead to washing. It is accepted by ALL commentators
> that these verse according to linguistic grounds LEAD to washing.
> Acceptance of one, does not mean denial of the other.
>from what i have read of Razi's commentary his position is that the verse leads to wiping and it
doesn't lead to washing. his justification of washing is the hadeeth and that (according to him)
washing includes wiping so washing is better to do.
>
> Second, the MASAH of the heads, can be akin to what is called a
> parenthetical phrase. This is allowed in allowed in Arabic.
it is allowed in Arabic as well as probably any language but it goes against the standards of eloquent
speech in Arabic. if you insist that the wiping of the head is a parenthetical phrase amidst 3
washings can you give me a few other examples of parenthetical phrases in the Qur'an?
> God did not reveal the Quran in ENGLISH. He revealed it in Arabic.
and I gave an arabic example with an English translation. if you would prefer to read the discussion
in Arabic that I got the example from see the commentary of 5:6 in tafseer al Mizan
http://holyquran.net or http://almizan.org
>
> And you are right He is the Most eloquent and the clear. If it was
> wiping, than the Book of God can be accused of REDUNDANCY.
??? I disagree with you 100%. The apparent meaning of the verse is that the face and arms be washed
and that the head and feet be wiped. To insist that the verse says to wash the feet is an acrobatic
twist of clear speech. I don't know how to convince you of this other than to refer you to the
classical works of tafseer of this works such as Razi's and Zamakhsharis.
Ask any non-muslim arab what he/she feels the verse is saying and I would really be shocked if they
said that the verse says to wash the feet. I feel that your inclination to whatever jurisprudence
school you belong to is severely influencing your view of the verse. You may say the same thing about
me so I suggest you find a impartial person to ask and see for yourself that what I am saying is not
at all unreasonable.
>
>
> > Coming back to the issue of MasH,
> >
> > we find that in the second part of the verse where Tayammum is addressed MasH is used with the
> > particle "bi" and that is why we wipe a part of our faces but after that aydeekum is read in the
> > genitive because a part of the hands is also wiped and not the whole arm. If we read it as
> > aydiyakum (in the accusative it would mean the whole arm should be wiped).
> >
>
> No it wouldn't. Genetive means POSSESSIVE, it is owned by the action.
do you recognize any difference between MasaHahu and MasaHa bihi?
>
> It is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO HOW MUCH SHOULD BE WIPED. The action is
> OWNED by the MASAH, thus it is read in genetive.
i don't know why we don't see eye to eye here. do you recognize no difference between saying:
imsaHuu ru uusakum
and
imsaHuu biru uusikum?
also
imsaHuu wujuuhakum
and
imsaHuu biwujuukikum?
> So tell me, from the
> previous commentary that you quoted:
>
> In tayammum, again due to the possessive particle ba in biwujuhikum,
> only a portion of the
> face and the hands have to be wiped-the parts which have to be washed
> in wudu are wiped in
> tayammum, and the parts which are wiped in wudu are omitted in
> tayammum.
>
> According to him, only a PORTION has to be wiped because of the
> possessive article. It has nothing to DO with the fact that the hands
> are NOT in genetive form.
the bi attached to the wujuuh affects the aydi and the fact that aydeekum is in the genitive proves
that. if aydi was in the accusative (eg. aydiyakum) like in the wudu part (arjulakum) that would mean
that the bi attached to the previous noun doesn't affect it so it would mean to wipe a part of and not
the whole of. That is what the commentator is saying also.
in Arabic if you use the particle bi you don't have to keep repeating bi for every noun that follow.
you can use only one bi and keep every noun that follows in the genitive case. if the case of the
following nouns shift to accusative or nominative it indicates a shift in meaning.
>
>
> Also, when the Quran uses aydiyakum, i.e. in the non-genetive form, it
> SPECIFIES HOW much to wipe. That is not merely indicated from the
> ACCUSATIVE. So when the Quran does not recognize that the accusative
> means the whole arm, then why do you?
again don't you recognize any difference between MasaHahu and MasaHa bihi? The object in MasaHahu
would be in the accusative and would indicate the wiping the whole of something and the object in
MasaHa bi would be in the genitive and would indicate the wiping a part of something.
This grammar discussion reminds me of one we had some years ago concerning the Prophet's declaration
at Ghadeer Khumm.
I believe it was you.
The Prophet says
Don't I have a greater right on you than yourselves? they reply yes.
Don't I have a greater right on every believer than he on his self? they reply yes.
Then he says "Whoever I am his Mawla 'Ali is his Mawla".
You take this "Whoever I am his Mawla" sentence as a Paranthetical Phrase, ignoring the immediate
context of his utterance and interpret it as friendship.
I sincerely and baffled at this stance. I don't know what to say.
Look at the text of the declaration of Ghadir.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/ali.jpg
Have you changed your opinion concerning the event?
Ridwaan
asimm...@yahoo.com
> > Second, the MASAH of the heads, can be akin to what is called a
> > parenthetical phrase. This is allowed in allowed in Arabic.
>
> it is allowed in Arabic as well as probably any language but it goes against the standards of eloquent
> speech in Arabic. if you insist that the wiping of the head is a parenthetical phrase amidst 3
> washings can you give me a few other examples of parenthetical phrases in the Qur'an?
>
First, I did not say it was parenthetical, I said it is similar to
what can be considered a parnethetical phrase.
Second, you keep shifting your opinions. One moment it is incorrect,
the next moment it is against eloquence. You need to make up your
mind. If it is ACCEPTED in language, than one cannot argue that it is
wrong. Now, either you are arguing that it is not accepted according
to eloquence, or the opinion of the sunnis is wrong linguitsically,
which it is not.
Third, if one wants to argue eloquence, I will say that it is not a
matter of eloquence, because if one were to accept your opinion it is
tantamount to saying that Quran has qualities of redundancy. And the
Quran cannot be accused of redundancy and that is a matter of
ineloquent speech.
>
> ??? I disagree with you 100%. The apparent meaning of the verse is that the face and arms be washed
> and that the head and feet be wiped. To insist that the verse says to wash the feet is an acrobatic
> twist of clear speech. I don't know how to convince you of this other than to refer you to the
> classical works of tafseer of this works such as Razi's and Zamakhsharis.
>
Let me put it to you quick:
1. The consensus sunni opinion is that one washes the feet. This
includes Razi and Zamakhshari. If washing was against the Quran they
would not have done it.
2. You cannot convince me with a wrong opinion.
> Ask any non-muslim arab what he/she feels the verse is saying and I would really be shocked if they
> said that the verse says to wash the feet. I feel that your inclination to whatever jurisprudence
> school you belong to is severely influencing your view of the verse. You may say the same thing about
> me so I suggest you find a impartial person to ask and see for yourself that what I am saying is not
> at all unreasonable.
>
You are merely being blind to your jurisprudence school. Your only
argument has come down to:
1. The opinion of a non-Muslim arab.
2. Eloquence.
I have no reason to be bias. It is much easier to wipe the feet, so
why would I choose the more difficult? I normally wash my feet, than
put on my socks and seek ease through the sunnah of the Prophet by
wiping on the socks.
>
> >
> >
> > > Coming back to the issue of MasH,
> > >
> > > we find that in the second part of the verse where Tayammum is addressed MasH is used with the
> > > particle "bi" and that is why we wipe a part of our faces but after that aydeekum is read in the
> > > genitive because a part of the hands is also wiped and not the whole arm. If we read it as
> > > aydiyakum (in the accusative it would mean the whole arm should be wiped).
> > >
> >
> > No it wouldn't. Genetive means POSSESSIVE, it is owned by the action.
>
> do you recognize any difference between MasaHahu and MasaHa bihi?
>
Are you reading correctly. The verse of tayammum says:
famsahuu BI wujuuhIkKUM wa aydiiyKUM. Notice that wa aydiikum is in
the gentive case when talking about tayammum, but not when talking
about the wudhu. There is a POSSESSIVE case of bi in both the verses
of wudhu and tayyammum, but in the case of wudhu only the head is in
the possessive.
If the feet was to be wiped in the WUDHU, arjilIKUM, and not arjiLAKUM
would not have been used.
In both cases of masah, whether in wudhu or tayammum, the actions
which are to be WIPED are in genetive. In the case of wudhu, the feet
are NOT IN GENETIVE though it follows the possessive BI.
Once again for you, the Quran further clarifies that the feet should
be washed when it says the extent to which the feet should be washed.
> >
> > It is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO HOW MUCH SHOULD BE WIPED. The action is
> > OWNED by the MASAH, thus it is read in genetive.
>
> i don't know why we don't see eye to eye here. do you recognize no difference between saying:
>
> imsaHuu ru uusakum
> and
> imsaHuu biru uusikum?
>
That is the whole point. Because the second case is possessive, the
face is in GENETIVE. In the verse on wudhu, even though the feet are
mentioned after the possessive with reference to the head, it is in
the ACCUSATIVE. Thus it is not part of the action of MASAH. It is
part of the action of fa gh siluu.
> > According to him, only a PORTION has to be wiped because of the
> > possessive article. It has nothing to DO with the fact that the hands
> > are NOT in genetive form.
>
> the bi attached to the wujuuh affects the aydi and the fact that aydeekum is in the genitive proves
> that.
Of course it does. That is not the argument. The feet is the
objective case and is governed by the word aghsilu, it is not governed
by the word wamsahuu. If it was governed by the masah than the feet
would have been in the GENTIVE case.
The only argument you can even make is that the washing of the feet
follows the wiping of the head, but that does not matter because:
1. In sunni position is 100 percent valid according to language.
2. The word is not in the genetive.
3. The Quran specifies how much to wash of the feet.
if aydi was in the accusative (eg. aydiyakum) like in the wudu part
(arjulakum) that would mean
> that the bi attached to the previous noun doesn't affect it so it would mean to wipe a part of and not
> the whole of. That is what the commentator is saying also.
>
Can you even think about what you are saying:
Tell me where one derives such a rule of language that the word is in
genetive or accusative depending on how much of the part of the body
to wipe. This a mere opinion not based on anything linguistical.
The accusative proves that the action is not part of the masah but
part of the faghsiluu, that is all.
Also, once again, the tayammum is symbolic. There is no mention of
the lengths one has to wipe because one is not actually washing the
limbs but is merely symbolizing that cleanliness is to be obtained.
> in Arabic if you use the particle bi you don't have to keep repeating bi for every noun that follow.
> you can use only one bi and keep every noun that follows in the genitive case.
Exactly, but the feet are NOT in the genetive case. They are in the
accusative case.
if the case of the
> following nouns shift to accusative or nominative it indicates a shift in meaning.
>
No. It means that the feet are governed by the wash, not the masah.
There is no shift in meaning at all.
> >
> >
> > Also, when the Quran uses aydiyakum, i.e. in the non-genetive form, it
> > SPECIFIES HOW much to wipe. That is not merely indicated from the
> > ACCUSATIVE. So when the Quran does not recognize that the accusative
> > means the whole arm, then why do you?
>
> again don't you recognize any difference between MasaHahu and MasaHa bihi? The object in MasaHahu
> would be in the accusative and would indicate the wiping the whole of something and the object in
> MasaHa bi would be in the genitive and would indicate the wiping a part of something.
>
Where is your proof for this in language? If that were the case, in
the wudhu the feet is in the ACCUSATIVE and God Almighty STILL
specifies how much to wash, i.e. UPTO YOUR ELBOWS. That was the whole
argument and you have not realized it. Once again, where is your
proof for the above claims when the Quran itself rejects it?
Wa salaam
rj...@mailandnews.com
asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> First, I did not say it was parenthetical, I said it is similar to
> what can be considered a parnethetical phrase.
so what is the sense of you bringing up parenthetical issues if the verse in question doesn't contain a
parenthetical phrase?
why don't you make up your mind?
>
>
> Second, you keep shifting your opinions. One moment it is incorrect,
> the next moment it is against eloquence. You need to make up your
> mind. If it is ACCEPTED in language, than one cannot argue that it is
> wrong.
it is incorrect because it goes against eloquence. it is accepted in sub-eloquent speech but the Qur'an is
the most eloquent speech therefore it can't be accepted as right.
>
>
> Third, if one wants to argue eloquence, I will say that it is not a
> matter of eloquence, because if one were to accept your opinion it is
> tantamount to saying that Quran has qualities of redundancy.
Redundancy? I have no idea what you are talking about. If we take the verse to mean 'wipe the feet' it has
nothing to do with redundancy at all. Do you even know what redundancy means? If so please demonstrate how
the verse leads to redundancy if we take it to mean wiping.
I say the verse says:
Wash your faces and arms to the elbows and wipe a part of your heads and feet up to the ankle bone.
You say
Wash your faces and arms to the elbows and wipe a part of your heads and wash your feet up to the ankle
bones.
> Let me put it to you quick:
>
> 1. The consensus sunni opinion is that one washes the feet. This
> includes Razi and Zamakhshari. If washing was against the Quran they
> would not have done it.
Have you even read Razi's and Zamakhshari's commentaries? I told you that Razi accepts that the apparent
meaning of the verse is to Wipe the Feet but he Washes the feet for two reasons:
1.Because of some hadeeth that say that the prophet washed his feet.
2.Because according to him washing includes the act of wiping so washing is better to do.
> 2. You cannot convince me with a wrong opinion.
If anything is redundant here it is your replies. Half of them don't make any sense at all. You spell
words wrong, mix up accusative with genitive with nonsensical statements. I am not even convinced you know
a word of arabic at all.
> > Ask any non-muslim arab what he/she feels the verse is saying and I would really be shocked if they
> > said that the verse says to wash the feet. I feel that your inclination to whatever jurisprudence
> > school you belong to is severely influencing your view of the verse. You may say the same thing about
> > me so I suggest you find a impartial person to ask and see for yourself that what I am saying is not
> > at all unreasonable.
> >
>
> You are merely being blind to your jurisprudence school. Your only
> argument has come down to:
>
> 1. The opinion of a non-Muslim arab.
> 2. Eloquence.
Wrong. My argument is about eloquence. The apparent meaning of the Qur'an according to many sunni
linguistic authorities is Wiping the feet. Your reply to that was Razi was wrong! I am wrong, everybody
who disagrees with you is wrong.
I suggested that you consult with an impartial Arab Speaking person to verify whether the apparent meaning
of the verse is washing the feet or wiping the feet. According to you the apparent meaning of the verse is
to wash the feet and according to me the apparent meaning of the verse is the wipe the feet. I say that
your view is influenced by your jurisprudential school and I was right that you would say the same about
me. So if you reject the opinion of such noteable authorities as Razi as wrong what better way to resolve
the issue than to consult an impartial authority of the Arabic Language? I was pretty sure you would also
reject that proposition. According to me it only confirms my understanding of your closed-minded stance.
>
>
> I have no reason to be bias. It is much easier to wipe the feet, so
> why would I choose the more difficult? I normally wash my feet, than
> put on my socks and seek ease through the sunnah of the Prophet by
> wiping on the socks.
I already posted a whole article about wiping the socks that showed the issue of wiping the socks is
problematic. Which sunni school of jurisprudence do you follow?
see: http://al-islam.org/masail/5.htm
The jurists of Islam have differed greatly on the [question of] wiping on slippers and socks, [differences]
which can not be
covered in this haste. In short, the discussion on it is connected with the question of its permissibility
and non-permissibility and
on limiting and defining its position. It [also] pertains to its characteristics, its timing, its
prerequisites and [on what] destroys it.
As for it being permissible, there are three views:
1) Always allowed whether one is travelling or at home.
2) Permissible when travelling, not when at home.
3) Not allowed at all as it has not been regulated in religion. The three views are narrated from the first
generation and from
Malik.
As for defining its position, they have also differed on it. There are those who say that it is obligatory
to wipe the upper part [of
the slipper] and that the wiping on the lower part is recommended. [Others] state that it is obligatory to
wipe the outer and the
inner parts. The third view is that it is obligatory to wipe the outer rather than the inner part, for the
wiping of the inner part is
neither obligatory nor recommended. There are those who say that one can choose between wiping the inner and
the upper
part, whichever you wipe becomes obligatory.
As for the type of position, those who say [it is necessary] to wipe on the slippers have differed on the
them. [They have] other differing views and contradictory verdicts on that which pertain to the wiping on
the slippers, it is not
our intention to discuss the details now.
As for the Imamis, following their predecessors - following the Imams of the pure family - [their view] is
that they do not allow
the wiping on the slippers, whether that be at home or on a journey. For our proof, the saying of the
Almighty is sufficient. He
said: "And wipe your heads and feet to the anklebones." This [verse] imposes the obligation of wiping on the
feet themselves.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> This grammar discussion reminds me of one we had some years ago concerning the Prophet's declaration
> at Ghadeer Khumm.
> I believe it was you.
>
> The Prophet says
>
> Don't I have a greater right on you than yourselves? they reply yes.
> Don't I have a greater right on every believer than he on his self? they reply yes.
>
> Then he says "Whoever I am his Mawla 'Ali is his Mawla".
>
> You take this "Whoever I am his Mawla" sentence as a Paranthetical Phrase, ignoring the immediate
> context of his utterance and interpret it as friendship.
>
> I sincerely and baffled at this stance. I don't know what to say.
>
> Look at the text of the declaration of Ghadir.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/ali.jpg
>
> Have you changed your opinion concerning the event?
>
Wa salaam
My opinion on Ghadeer Khum is based upon a series of factors:
1. The statement of Ali is attributed towards objections made by some
people against certain decisions when he was appointed by the Prophet
(S) to adjudge certain matters. The Prophet (S) found they were
baseless, and they were based not on understanding, but personal
opinion.
2. This statement had happened in Ghadeer Khum, well after the final
hajj, and the various tribes had already preceded along their way
home.
3. This ahadeeth is not reported by any of major compilers, except
Musand Hanbal and Nasai. It satates that one should love Ali, and
those that bear ill will towards him, God should bear enmity towards
them. There is nothing here which contardicts the tenets of sunniism
anyways, whether it is authentic or not, and their is no implication
of khaleephate.
4. If the Prophet wanted to appoint a successor, he would have made
it clearly known. Not only that, he still had a year left. There are
no pronouncements made nor aggressive propagation to make it known..
5. The Prophet (S0 was ordered by God to make the injunctions very
clear, and not to fear the people in ANY regard. If it was a
religoius obligation, he would have made it known and continued to
make it known.
6. I never agreed to the shia narration of the event, so I do not
even know how I agreed with you over the alleged questioning by the
Prophet (S). It is well-known that the Prophet (S0 favoured NONE of
his family with respect to the injunctions of God. He would not have
justified Ali's (R) actions based merely upon relations. "If Fatima
(R) had stolen, I would have had her hand cut off."
7. Mawla means a number of different things. In the context of the
narration, it proves the greatness of Ali (R). But it does not prove
the khaleephate of Ali (R).
asimm...@yahoo.com
> salaam,
>
> asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > First, I did not say it was parenthetical, I said it is similar to
> > what can be considered a parnethetical phrase.
>
> so what is the sense of you bringing up parenthetical issues if the verse in question doesn't contain a
> parenthetical phrase?
>
> why don't you make up your mind?
>
Wa salaam
You are really grabbing at straws. You are the one that needs to make
up your mind. Is it eloquence or a matter of linguistics?
> >
> >
> > Second, you keep shifting your opinions. One moment it is incorrect,
> > the next moment it is against eloquence. You need to make up your
> > mind. If it is ACCEPTED in language, than one cannot argue that it is
> > wrong.
>
> it is incorrect because it goes against eloquence. it is accepted in sub-eloquent speech but the Qur'an is
> the most eloquent speech therefore it can't be accepted as right.
>
You never even grasped the argument:
1. It is allowed linguistically in the Quran. The issue of eloquence
is irrelevant to it. One moment you post a whole paragraph as related
to linguistics, including speeches on grammar, but when that is proven
wrong, you say your position is based upon eloquence.
2. The feet are mentioned last, because they are the LAST thing to be
washed.
That is why the washing of the feet is mentioned last. According to
the language, i.e the accusative form for the feet, the feet belong to
the verb fa ghsiluu, or wash. The hands upto the elbows and the face
are in the same form as the feet upto the ankles. The head is
mentioned in the genetive, and has the possessive particle of bi.
Reread the verse on tayammum, where the possessive particle is used
for the face. Tha hands FOLLOW ALSO IN THE GENTIVE, because it
belongs to the action of MASAH.
3. It is against eloquence if one were to accept your view. That
would mean the Quran is being redundant when it specificies the
lengths to which one should wipe his feet. There is NO example from
the Quran that when wiping is done, the lengths to which one wipes is
made.
4. You are merely asserting a personal opinion without ANY RELEVANCE
to the argument itself. By saying eloquence, what it amounts to, it
is my opinion.
> >
> >
> > Third, if one wants to argue eloquence, I will say that it is not a
> > matter of eloquence, because if one were to accept your opinion it is
> > tantamount to saying that Quran has qualities of redundancy.
>
> Redundancy? I have no idea what you are talking about. If we take the verse to mean 'wipe the feet' it has
> nothing to do with redundancy at all. Do you even know what redundancy means? If so please demonstrate how
> the verse leads to redundancy if we take it to mean wiping.
>
Because of the words UPTO THE ANKLES. The Quran when it mentions
WIPING never mentions the lengths to which one wipes. Wiping is a
SYMBOL that cleanliness is to be obtained. Thus, the extent of wiping
has NO relevance to the wiping because one is not actually cleaning
the parts.. The Quran NEVER mentions how much to wipe when it uses
the word MASAH. It does not, because wiping is merely symbolic.
>
> Have you even read Razi's and Zamakhshari's commentaries? I told you that Razi accepts that the apparent
> meaning of the verse is to Wipe the Feet but he Washes the feet for two reasons:
> 1.Because of some hadeeth that say that the prophet washed his feet.
> 2.Because according to him washing includes the act of wiping so washing is better to do.
>
Razi NEVER said that washing the feet is WRONG linguistically. Prove
he did, and QUOTE EVERYTHING from his commentary from the verse.
Please do not refer to a shias partial quoting of Razi.
> > 2. You cannot convince me with a wrong opinion.
>
> If anything is redundant here it is your replies. Half of them don't make any sense at all. You spell
> words wrong, mix up accusative with genitive with nonsensical statements. I am not even convinced you know
> a word of arabic at all.
>
Your failure to understand is your own fault. There is NOTHING
nonsensical in my statements. You have asserted that the feet in the
wudhu are not in the accusative form because the extent to the wiping,
i.e. upton the ankles, is mentioned. This is supported by not a
single shred of evidence whatsoever. First, the hands are in the
accusative form and they mention how far upto wash.
Second, grammatical articles have nothing to do with extents of
washing, but how one word is related to another word, i.e. because the
feet are accusative and not genetive, they belong to the action of
faghsiluu.
> Wrong. My argument is about eloquence. The apparent meaning of the Qur'an according to many sunni
> linguistic authorities is Wiping the feet. Your reply to that was Razi was wrong! I am wrong, everybody
> who disagrees with you is wrong.
>
First, your ORIGINAL argument was that it was wrong linguistically.
Second, now you are arguing it as a matter of eloquence. That is a
matter of personal opinion not based upon anything linguistical.
Third, The consensus SUNNI opinion is to WASH the feet. That is why
they wash it. Linguistically, it is CORRECT. You have given
absolutely NO evidence linguistically that your opinion is correct.
>
> >
> >
> > I have no reason to be bias. It is much easier to wipe the feet, so
> > why would I choose the more difficult? I normally wash my feet, than
> > put on my socks and seek ease through the sunnah of the Prophet by
> > wiping on the socks.
>
> I already posted a whole article about wiping the socks that showed the issue of wiping the socks is
> problematic. Which sunni school of jurisprudence do you follow?
>
It is not problematic. Masah is a symbol that cleanliness is to be
obtained, but circumstances do not mitigate it. Thus, Allah allows us
to wipe. If one were to accept your self-contradictory opinion, then
there is no sense in not allowing the wiping of the socks. One does
MASAH on the head as a symbol of cleanliness. One does MASAH for
tayammum as a symbol to be cleansed. If one is performing MASAH on
the feet, than there is NO HARM in doing MASAH on the socks, because
one is symbolizing that the feet should be cleaned. You cannot even
comprehend that basic argument no matter how many times I repeat it.
By the way, I follow the Quran and sunnah. Your argument is wrong,
plain and simple.
rj...@mailandnews.com
asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> You are really grabbing at straws. You are the one that needs to make
> up your mind. Is it eloquence or a matter of linguistics?
my argument has always been about eloquence. i haven't even use the word "linguistics" in my posts. I had to
bring up issues of Arabic grammar to demonstrate why reading the word "arjulakum" in the accusative still leads to
wiping.
my argument was that the apparent meaning of the Qur'an is 2 washings and 2 wipings. this is why even the Sunni
English Translations of the Qur'an such as Yusafali and Pickthall put the word "wash" in brackets when the
translate the verse 5:6.
Fakhruddeen Razi in his Commentary even admits that the wiping is the apparent meaning. He does not say that
washing of the feet is the apparent meaning at all.
>From the grammar point of view (even when read in the accusative) wiping is the more obvious choice of meaning.
Your attempts to describe redundancy were utterly pathetic.
>Because of the words UPTO THE ANKLES. The Quran when it mentions
>WIPING never mentions the lengths to which one wipes. Wiping is a
>SYMBOL that cleanliness is to be obtained.
exactly how many times does the Qur'an use the word "wiping"? From what I counted it is only 3 times. Once in
4:34 and twice here in 5:6.
Two places it used the word wiping for hands and feet and once it uses it for the head and feet.
Is that enough usage for one to make a strong argument as you have attempted. no.
But as you are the one who is trying to bring usages in the Qur'an into the picture can you even bring a single
verse with any verb you want where the object of a sentence is related to a verb of a previous sentence as you are
alleging takes place in 5:6?
here is the scenario:
You have the imperitive verb WASH then you have two objects for that verb, FACE and HANDS
Then you have a second verb WIPE followed by two more objects, HEAD and FEET.
but you are sayig that FEET is related to the previous verb WASH!
Can you even bring a single verse with any verb you want where the object of a sentence is related to a verb of a
previous sentence as you are alleging takes place in 5:6?
If anyone is grabbing at straws it is yourself.
salaam,
Ridwaan
asimm...@yahoo.com
> bring up issues of Arabic grammar to demonstrate why reading the word "arjulakum" in the accusative still leads to
> wiping.
>
Salaam
That is what is meant by linguistics. The use of Arabic grammar is to
prove it is from language. The issue of eloquence is irrelevant to
it. The Quran mentions the feet last because it is sequential, it is
the last thing to be washed. The issue of apparent meaning is
irrelevant to it.
And, NO, it does not still lead to washing. There is nothing that
supports it, and is rejected by the Quran itself. If it lead to
washing, it would be in the genetive just as the hands are in the
GENETIVE in the mentioning of tayammum. You argument is REJECTED BY
THE QURAN ITSELF.
> my argument was that the apparent meaning of the Qur'an is 2 washings and 2 wipings. this is why even the Sunni
> English Translations of the Qur'an such as Yusafali and Pickthall put the word "wash" in brackets when the
> translate the verse 5:6.
They put the words washing in brackets as an EXPLANATORY note. That
measn they ACCEPT the meaning that it is washing. Yusuf Ali also puts
in brackets when explaining that the hands upto the elbows has to be
washed, the word arms.
> Fakhruddeen Razi in his Commentary even admits that the wiping is the apparent meaning. He does not say that
> washing of the feet is the apparent meaning at all.
>
I said QUOTE EVERYTHING IN HIS COMMENTARY, which you ahve not, and you
expect me to swallow your assertion. Do not quote partially,
especially from a shia site. I do not even have access to Razi, but
that really does not matter to me, because the argument for washing is
clear, and I do not need Razi to tell me that.
You haven't given any evidence to prove your assertion. Just merely
repeating a name does not give any validity to the verse. Either you
provide an objective revuttal to the claims, or not. I have other
translations that accept it as washing. What's your point? What it
boils down to is the argument itself.
> >From the grammar point of view (even when read in the accusative) wiping is the more obvious choice of meaning.
>
> Your attempts to describe redundancy were utterly pathetic.
>
Once again, no rebuttal/
> >Because of the words UPTO THE ANKLES. The Quran when it mentions
> >WIPING never mentions the lengths to which one wipes. Wiping is a
> >SYMBOL that cleanliness is to be obtained.
>
> exactly how many times does the Qur'an use the word "wiping"? From what I counted it is only 3 times. Once in
> 4:34 and twice here in 5:6.
>
Exactly, and not ONCE did it specifiy how much to wipe. In ALL these
cases they are RELEVANT to the subject at hand. The Quran explains
the purpose of MASAH, i.e. it gives the rationale so one may
understand its purpose.
>
> but you are sayig that FEET is related to the previous verb WASH!
>
Because of the SEQUENCE of the performanceof wudhu. The last thing
that is to be done is the WASHING OF THE FEET. I said that inone of
the first few posts.
> Can you even bring a single verse with any verb you want where the object of a sentence is related to a verb of a
> previous sentence as you are alleging takes place in 5:6?
>
What this implies is that you deny that it is linguistically correct?
It then has nothing to do with eloquence, right? You need to make up
your mind.
You have not brought a SINGLE CREDIBLE argument to back up your
stance, yet you are putting the onus on ME? Strange.
> If anyone is grabbing at straws it is yourself.
>
I can't comprehend it. Our brother comes here and thinks that he can
merely shoot down the consensus opinion as if its nothing, and gives
out long drawn arguments to attempt to prove it. When he is put to
the challenge, he then comes up with this. The problem is when they
come in here thinking they can merely put to flight an opinion that is
corraborated by the Quran itself, and the practical perpetuation of
this practice of the Muslim world.
Salaam
rj...@mailandnews.com
asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > but you are sayig that FEET is related to the previous verb WASH!
> >
>
> Because of the SEQUENCE of the performanceof wudhu. The last thing
> that is to be done is the WASHING OF THE FEET. I said that in one of
> the first few posts.
Your sequence argument makes no sense. We also believe that the feet is the last thing in Wudhu but that the feet are
wiped not washed.
If you don't have access to Fakhruddeen Razi's Mafatihul Ghayb I will scan the relevant pages and email it to you insha
allah.
But you do have access to the Qur'anic text and my request is simple. This verse 5:6 is a Muhkam verse and not a
Mutashabih verse (decisive not allegorical). Please produce a single verse in the Qur'an where an object of a sentence
literally skips over the verb in context and relates to a verb of a previous sentence.
we in 5:6 have:
the verb WASH followed by two objects; FACE and HANDS
then another verb WIPE followed by two objects; HEAD and FEET
We say that FEET obviously relates to WIPE but you are claiming that FEET skips over the verb WIPE and relates to WASH
of the previous sentence!
This as far as I know doesn't take place anywhere in the Qur'an. The most reasonable and intuitive view is that FEET
obviously relates to WIPE.
Your sectarian bias and prejudice has blinded you from even considering the possibility that what you are practicing is
incorrect and against the apparent meaning of the Qur'an.
Nonetheless I will do you the favor of scanning and emailing you the commentary of 5:6 of Mafatihul Ghayb of Razi so
that you can see for yourself that BOTH accusative and genitive readings of FEET still leads to WIPING.
>
>
> I can't comprehend it. Our brother comes here and thinks that he can
> merely shoot down the consensus opinion as if its nothing, and gives
> out long drawn arguments to attempt to prove it. When he is put to
> the challenge, he then comes up with this. The problem is when they
> come in here thinking they can merely put to flight an opinion that is
> corraborated by the Quran itself, and the practical perpetuation of
> this practice of the Muslim world.
The truth is that you can't comprehend a lot of things. I have given examples from Sunni Compilations of Hadeeth where
Ibn 'Abbas expicitly argues in favor of Wiping the Feet. You argue Muslim world, Muslim world while forgetting due to
your sectarianism that the Shi'ah are also of the Muslim world and they have been always wiping their feet in ablution
since the very first century! So where does that leave your consensus of the Muslim World?
As far as your previous 7 objections about Ghadir Khumm it was literally plagued with so many errors and blunders I
have to give a seperate reply to it.
Good Luck to you,
Ridwaan
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Your sequence argument makes no sense. We also believe that the feet is the last thing in Wudhu but that the feet are
> wiped not washed.
>
You are saying that the it is poor eloquence because the feet are
mentioned last. There is no issue of eloquence here because the feet
are the last thing to be washed. The Quran is specifying not only
what to be washed, but the order in which the parts are to be washed.
Linguistically, it is perfectly correct to sya the feet are to be
washed.
Please produce a single verse in the Qur'an where an object of a
sentence
> literally skips over the verb in context and relates to a verb of a previous sentence.
>
Ehy do I have to find it? The word is in accusative not the gentive.
I don't have to go around seeking any verse and attempting to find it.
I have given sufficient evidence to prove it and you are asking me to
go look around? You need to answer the objections first before you
even ask me to do something.
Once again, now you are saying it is a matter of linguistcs and not
eloquence.
> we in 5:6 have:
>
> the verb WASH followed by two objects; FACE and HANDS
> then another verb WIPE followed by two objects; HEAD and FEET
>
> We say that FEET obviously relates to WIPE but you are claiming that FEET skips over the verb WIPE and relates to WASH
> of the previous sentence!
>
First, The argument is that the feet is not in the GENTIVE, it is in
the accusative.
Second, the possessive particale relates only to the head, thus the
head is in the GENITIVE.
Third, the feet are last because they are the last thing to be washed.
Fourth, it is one sentecne, not a previous sentence.
Fifth, can you comprehend that or is your only argument the fact that
the feet are mentioned last?
> This as far as I know doesn't take place anywhere in the Qur'an. The most reasonable and intuitive view is that FEET
> obviously relates to WIPE.
>
> Your sectarian bias and prejudice has blinded you from even considering the possibility that what you are practicing is
> incorrect and against the apparent meaning of the Qur'an.
>
It ios your sectarian bias. You have not given any proof of your
assertion except for the fact that the feet are mentioned last. They
are the last thing to be mentioned because they are the last object to
be washed.
I can turn the argument around and say that if the feet were mentioned
before the head, everybody would be wiping there head after washing
their feet. Your argument takes no linguistics into consideration but
is asserting something thourhg the words apparent, even though it is
not apparent. Apparency is a matter of personal opinion.
> Nonetheless I will do you the favor of scanning and emailing you the commentary of 5:6 of Mafatihul Ghayb of Razi so
> that you can see for yourself that BOTH accusative and genitive readings of FEET still leads to WIPING.
>
Do that? But open up the rest of the commentaries that say it leads
to washing. The Quran itself rejects the argument in other verses,
i.e. tayammum.
> The truth is that you can't comprehend a lot of things. I have given examples from Sunni Compilations of Hadeeth where
> Ibn 'Abbas expicitly argues in favor of Wiping the Feet.
You gave me ahadeeth which are against common sense and which are
contradicted by the most authoritative sunni compilations out there.
Also, suyuti uses many weak ahadeeth and the one's you quoted are
obviously weak ahadeeth. I have given my arguments for it, and yet
your argument comes down to suyuti mentioned it. Wow.
You argue Muslim world, Muslim world while forgetting due to
> your sectarianism that the Shi'ah are also of the Muslim world and they have been always wiping their feet in ablution
> since the very first century! So where does that leave your consensus of the Muslim World?
>
You claim they have. Shiaism originated much later and became a
theological entity years after the revolt. The Imams, Ali, Hasan and
Husain all washed there feet.
So give your evidence, not mere opinion that things are apparent and
this and that.
rj...@mailandnews.com
asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> You gave me ahadeeth which are against common sense and which are
> contradicted by the most authoritative sunni compilations out there.
You are incorrect brother.
Please see for example:
http://geocities.com/aly2k1/masH1.jpg
http://geocities.com/aly2k1/masH2.jpg
The last link is from Kanz al 'Ummal with indicates from the symbols 'AB, Sw, Sh, D, T, N and h that the hadeeth has been
recorded by:
abd al razzaq in his jaami'
sunan sa'eed bin mansoor
musannaf of ibn abi shaybah
sunan abi dawood
sunan Tirmidhi
sunan of nisai
sunan of Ibn Majah
Ibn 'Abbas argues that the people refuse to do anything but the washing (of the feet) but I do not find in the book of Allah
but the wiping (of the feet).
The only reason I gave the Durr Manthoor of Suyuuti Reference is because it is an easier place for you to find all these
ahaadeeth in the same place but the Sihaah al Sittah does contain quite a few references about wiping the feet also.
I wish you would take the time some day to carefully read:
http://al-islam.org/masail/5.htm
If you prefer to read it in arabic you may do so at:
http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/masael/fehrest.html
lastly you are very brave to claim that the Ahlul-Bayt (as) washed their feet and didn't wipe them. it only shows to what
extent you are willing to go to argue washing the feet, to the extent of saying things without knowledge. may Allah forgive.
we have so many ahaadeeth from the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt, from so many Imams that they all wiped their feet in ablution.
see http://rafed.net/books/hadith/wasael-1/ for some examples.
salaam