[cheapphenonline]

The point behind the book was to show that masah is permissible as long as the conditions are met.

So if they are thick enough, no problem.

well sidi, my point was that the conditions for thickness stipulated by the Hanafis are not necessarily the same as those stipulated by the Hanbalis are they?

for example, would the Hanafis be satisfied by the conditions for 'thick socks' mentioned by the Hanbali shaykh here:

(1) What is intended by thick?

A quick look through the literature indicates that what is intended by "thick" is that the material be thick enough that the color of the underlying skin not be discernable. Basically: thickness is a quality that is not sought in and of itself; thus it is neither sought in and of itself nor is it something quantitative. So what follows is that regardless of the "thickness" or the "thinness" of the material: as long as the color of the underlying skin is not discernable, then it is considered "thick" regarding this ruling.[1]



There are few things in the basic literature that strengthen the above. First of all: nowhere do we find it said that the material used for a man's turban or a woman's hijab be of a particular thickness. Regarding a woman's hijab, it need only be thick enough so that the hair and skin that it covers be indiscernible.



Secondly: when giving examples of what cannot be wiped over, a common example is that silken socks cannot be wiped over when worn by men. That the example is qualified by "when worn by men" is quite significant, since from this it is understood that if the silken socks are worn by a woman that there would be problem in wiping over them. The only problem with silk in and of itself is when it is worn by men, since it is unlawful for men to use something the majority of which is silk. As far as I know, silk is thin compared to most other materials, even synthetics. So if a woman can wipe over silk socks provided they meet the typical conditions for wiping over barriers, then it would follow that other materials similar to silk in thinness and rendering indiscernible the color of the skin underneath it would also be acceptable.



For the sake of completeness: there is a weak position in the mathab that making the underlying skin indiscernible is not a condition. But this is a weak position, and should only be used when necessary according to the shari`a.



(2) Do the socks need to be water resistant or water repellent?

Another quick browse through the literature shows that most books say nothing at all about this. Since the default quality of material is that it not be water resistant, the implication is that water resistance is not a condition. But it is still better for us to find this explicitly stated where possible.



A few books, like Al-Furu` and Al-Insaf, indicate that there is a weak position in the mathab that water resistance is a condition. This lends support to the lack of mention being interpreted as it not being a condition.



In Nail Al-Ma'arib, a standard commentary on Dalil Al-Talib, it is explicitly stated that being water resistant is not a condition.



And looking at the allowances for wiping over a man's turban or a woman's hijab: while being water resistant may be a desirable quality, it certainly is not a condition for the material used.



Again, for the sake of completeness: given that there is a weak position in the mathab that the material should be water resistant and that water resistance is a condition in other mathabs, like the Shafi`i, it would be better that the material be water repellent. Better, but not obligatory.



Wrap Up

From what preceded, it is clear that what is intended by "thick" is that the material be such that the color of underlying skin not be discernable, and that it is not a condition that the material be waterproof. While I showed how the literature of the mathab supports these conclusions, they are also supported by living scholars of the mathab.

http://www.hanbali.org/hanbali_index/wos2.php and, more knowledgable malikis can confirm this but they generally only masah over leather socks and not other cotton socks,etc which meet the conditions the Hanafis refer to.

so basically, i'm not sure of the point of referring to all four madhhabs as they were one is....

Maliki Conditions for Masah:

119. What are the preconditions for wiping over the khuff and jawrab?

There are eleven preconditions which must be met before a person is permitted to wipe over his socks in wudu'; six preconditions relating to that which is wiped and five preconditions relating to the person who performs the wiping:

There are six preconditions relating to that which is wiped (in other words, the khuff. If any of these preconditions is lacking then it is not permitted to wipe over it):

1. That it is made from leather. If it is made from other than leather then it is not permitted to wipe over it.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...mum.html#socks
The preconditions in what is wiped are:

That they are made of leather and are not things like cotton socks

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...ey/Page25.html [quote]


The first precondition is that the sock must either be entirely (top and bottom) made of leather which is pure
(and not impure (e.g., the skin of a pig)). This means that the external surface of sock must be leather. Thus,
leather sewn on top of cotton/nylon/etc. socks fulfills the precondition, but plain cotton/nylon/plastic/vinyl/etc.
socks without leather sewn on top of them do not. Additionally, shoes which do not have a leather bottom may
not be wiped over. Another precondition is that the leather sock should cover the entire foot from toes to the top
of the ankles. Another precondition is that one should be able to walk with the sock on. Another precondition
is that one wipes on the leather sock itself and not another fabric on top of it.

Guiding Helper note 441

and again from the Guiding Helper:

The khuff in Arabic refers to the type of leather socks which were commonly available in the Prophet's time. Leather here is the skin of an edible animal (such as a cow, goat, sheep, deer, raccoon, lion, tiger, snake, etc.). We have been unable to find an authentic recorded opinion within the Maliki school that allows the wiping over non leather socks. We do not claim that such an opinion does not exist, but what we have narrated is the popular opinion within the school. In searching for the legal ruling on this issue given by traditional scholars outside the Maliki school we found:

a) Some traditional scholars (e.g., Shafi`i / Hanafi) allow wiping over fully water-proof socks/boots (e.g., those made of plastic, vinyl, rubber, or some other flexible or rigid (e.g., wood) waterproof-material). The criteria that these non-Maliki scholars use is to see whether water will reach the skin of the foot if it is trickled on to the sock continuously. If the skin of the foot remains dry after such tricking, then the sock is permissible to wipe over according to the opinion of these traditional non-Maliki scholars.

b) One strain of scholars within the Hanbali school (reference: [AM: volume 1: page 3; line(s) 2: {Ibn Qudamah al- Maqdasi; al-Mughni, volume 1, page 298}]) allow wiping over thread woven socks (e.g., cotton/wool socks) if they are "sufficiently" thick. These scholars do not stipulate that the socks must be waterproof, but stipulate that they should be so thick that they do not allow the skin of the foot underneath to be seen (for example, transparent/translucent thin socks would be unacceptable according to the view of these scholars while thick wool socks would be acceptable).