Foot in the sink

Society Religion & Philosophy
21

Re: Foot in the sink

The days I wear sandals, I wet the paper towel and use it.

I also try to put my socks on right after fajar.

22

Re: Foot in the sink

My office has a shower room. I just perform wuzu there.

23

Re: Foot in the sink

Wait what??!?!?! THat’s not right?!?! :bummer: the point is to get foot wet right? what if some ppl can’t raise their legs to the sink (old age, too fat, muscles hurt from whatever), woh kya karein?

24

Re: Foot in the sink

^ If they get the whole feet wet (as per the rules) then this will be considered "paon dhona" and it should make the wuzu valid.

Masa is just to wipe with water, not necessarily wetting the entire surface (e.g. the masa done for the head).

25

Re: Foot in the sink

The point is to get the foot wet, in such a way that even a tiny space would not be left dry. Wiping foot with wet hand ??? … I mean how will the skin between foot fingers ever get wet

26

Re: Foot in the sink

The person who told me was referring to some saudi scholar . Is it ok to follow it.

I want to know Tableeghi Jamaat view on this

27

Re: Foot in the sink

What STP is saying, I was told by a group of Arabs in a mosque in Pittsburgh as well.. Wallah-O-Alam.. Imam Abu Hanifa's fiqh still does not allow it... Leather Socks or otherwise wash the feet... Period.

28

Re: Foot in the sink

Tableeghi Bhai are Hanafi/Deobandi. I think AQ said it right

29

Re: Foot in the sink

Bro SoP and others, here is the detailed article by Mufti Taqi Usmani:
Masah over Regular Socks

We shouldn’t compromise our deen guys!!! Also, we should be the best of examples at our work/school by keeping everything clean.

30

Re: Foot in the sink

Question:
What is nature of socks during wipening.? Can a person wipe on any socks or it must be leather. Give the answer in light of Quran and Hadith?

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.
It was narrated that al-Mugheerah ibn Shu’bah said: “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did wudoo’ and wiped over his socks and shoes.” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 92; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Sunan al-Tirmidhi, no. 86)

The author of al-Qaamoos said: jawrab (socks) means something that is wrapped around the feet.

Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi said: jawrab means a thin cover for the feet made of wool, worn to keep the feet warm.

It was narrated that Yahyaa al-Bakka’ said: I heard Ibn ‘Umar saying, “Wiping over the socks (jawrabayn) is like wiping over the leather slippers (khuffayn).”

Al-Musannaf by Ibn Abi Shaybah, 1/173

Ibn Hazm said: wiping over anything that is worn on the feet – of things that are permitted to be worn and which come up above the ankles – is Sunnah, whether they are slippers (khuffayn) made of leather or felt or wood, or socks made of linen, wool, cotton, camel hair or goat hair, whether leather is worn over them or not, or whether they are overshoes or slippers worn over slippers or socks worn over socks.

Al-Muhalla, 1/321

Some scholars differed as to whether it is permissible to wipe over the slippers (khuffaayn). The correct view as indicated by the evidence is that it is permissible to do that, as stated above.

And Allaah knows best.

See the answer to Question No. 8186 and 9640

Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

31

Re: Foot in the sink

… or wat you can do is put your foot in the toilet and flush it :hehe:

32

Re: Foot in the sink

^ Did it work? :faizy:

33

Re: Foot in the sink

^I’m not of the opinion that you should go all lengths only to put some H2O-moisture on all parts of your feet.

the point is of having clean feet, not about wetting all parts of your foot :smack:
as a matter of fact, in a hospital you could even get cleaner feet by applying chlorhexidine than doing all kinds of acrobatic stunts only to get at least one molecule of H2O on every square micrometer of your feet :smack:

34

Re: Foot in the sink

So, according to the WISDOM, ILHAAM of Janaab NeSCio, water is not necessary for the wudhu after all :chupki:

35

Re: Foot in the sink

Before I reply to this post I would like the moderators to note a few errors and personal (!) implications made by the poster, and act upon those as found necessary by the forum guidelines.

  • Nowhere have I stated or even implied that I base my posts on any kind of revelation. However, by attributing to me ‘revealation’ (sic) the poster is perhaps equating me to Prophets, which I by no means want to be or would even think to be. Moreover, I would consider it as an insult to my noble faith if someone attributes to me revelations. As per forum guidelines, the poster ought to receive a warning for this insult.

  • The poster attributes to me titles, e.g. ‘Shaikh Mufti’, which I have nowhere stated I carry, and which he could not have concluded based on any of my current or previous posts in this forum, or any other forum at GUPSHUP. Given the perceived sarcastic use of these titles, I would recommend moderators to verbally reprimand the poster for such behaviour.

  • Moreso given the fact that in a forum, which I moderate, the poster had, less than 24 hours ago, requested me to remove a comment in which the poster was being referred to as ‘anwar qwazy’. One would expect that if someone doesn’t like being called in a certain way, not to treat others similarly either - be it literal or sarcastic use.

  • Finally, perhaps not directly linked to this, I would like to remind the poster not to re-edit posts that a moderator has edited. From reliable sources I gathered the poster had done a similar misconduct previously, which led to a self-imposed ban from GUPSHUP, except Poetry forum.

ps: I didn’t use the ‘report bad post’-function, because I also wanted this message to be conveyed to the poster, who perhaps might want to edit his post.

36

Re: Foot in the sink

Could you take re-post this in feedback section also. We all are really Sick and tired of AQ's behavior and someone should listen

37

Re: Foot in the sink

aag ko hawaa daina aap say hi chala ho ga :hehe:

^KAASH^
38

Re: Foot in the sink

I would want to know why you based such an “Opinion” about wudhu.. where wudhu itself is anm Islamic ritual. By saying such stuff, you are disagreeing with the way of prophet… more so, Quran specifically used the word of cleaning it with water… then why such a remark?

If you know ENGLISH, you would know that REVELATION does not always have a theological understanding of the word and does not automatically become anything that is from GOD..

Here are the two famous meanings as well:

1.the act of revealing or disclosing; disclosure.

2.something revealed or disclosed, esp. a striking disclosure, as of something not before realized.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=revelation)

Shaikh is a title that is often refered to a “teacher” in Arabic… It is sad that our ignorance of the language and our ‘pre-conceived’ sarcastic attribution to certain words offend us more than anything… Similarly ‘Mufti’ is someone who pass a judgement “based on his OPINION” and since you used the word Opinion, Mufti was just a friendly word for that… I do not understand why the two noble words suddenly become an insult?

First I did not directly contacted you.. I just used the “report bad post” option.. second there is a difference between giving someone a known title which thousands of people around the world carry around as a symbol of being noble and altering someone’s name totally to a word that sounds a total ‘curse’ … you see the point?

I did not edit the word that you replaced… which means I AGREED with you… I should not have used that word… so there should not be a problem IMO. secondly, your reliable sources are very much misinformed… I did not stop psoting because of that incident alone… The same person whose post you removed yesterday had continuously used a dregetory alteration of my first name and there was no action taken against him and he continued it even after my continuous ignoring of him and continuos bad post reporting… therefore, I had retaliated against him in a conversation… which led to a warning to me … I had stopped coming to other forums from that point on… your sources think that ‘they made me leave the place’? quite wrong…

Thanks for a detailed reply.

39

Re: Foot in the sink

The answer to this question remains pending until I think the rest of the post has satisfactorily been answered.

I know my English well enough, thank you. The link you provide also gives a third definition of ‘revelation’ pertaining to theology. Given that this is the ‘religion’-forum we are posting in, the first meaning of the word ‘revelation’ that comes to mind when visiting this forum, is the theological definition.
Still, thank you for the clarification of what you meant, and I think I can now safely assume that I can call your posts revelations in the same vein as you called mine?

It doesn’t matter what Shaikh means, I did not ask anyone to address me using that word or any other word besides my screen name. And certainly I am not a teacher either, especially not yours. And the point is not whether you call someone something which is positive or negative, the point is calling someone something he did not ask for irrespective of the connotation.

Same thing holds for mufti.
Furthermore, I did not say I found your use of the two words insulting. And even if I did find something insulting about this part of your post, it was not you calling me those two words, but you calling me something else than what my screen name is.

first I never said you contacted me directly

Again, it doesn’t matter to me if the title you give to me if positive or negative, it’s about giving a title which one does not (want to) carry. For me that is enough to file a complaint.

But you did edit out the traces with which other posters could see your post was edited. Again, it is not about whether you edit something in agreement or disagreement with me, it’s your re-editing something in the first place.
For your information, I have re-re-edited that post of yours.

What my sources think does not matter to me. I gave that example as an instance in which you have re-edited something the moderator edited. What the reason or consequence of that was, is trivial to the whole matter of editing something in the first place.

40

Re: Foot in the sink


Did you fail to see that I had edited my earlier response seeing that you found it offensive? If you did not, then I wonder what is making you not to answer the original query... why are you going off-topic by bringing issues from other places here... ???


and since I already edited it WAY before you posted it, I will wonder in what justification would you want the use of the word?


quite redundant... I explained my use of words already but at the same time, I understood you took the offensive and hence edited it... If you want to keep chanting the same mantra, be my guest...


neither did I say i did not contact you indirectly...


your complaint was heard and appropriate action taken - that is editing of the original post.


It was my post and I did not edit and post anything against the forum rules.... I will suggest that you discuss this kind of instances with Administration to come up with a policy on all forums that a re-editing of a post (after a mod has edited) should not be allowed... In such case, after a mod has edited a post, user option to re-edit should be disabled.... A user can edit to add the contents too in such cases.... Contiunously whinning about this and throwing warning (I appreciate you did not do that though) only tells us that you have a free hand to issue warning on things beyond RULES as well... I did not violate any defined rule...

and thank you for re-editing the post... I do not mind...

the reason or consequences of that was ILLEGAL warning for I did not re-post what was edited.... If you expect us not to feel offended on your editing, you should have enough courage to accept that while it is available to us, it is our post and as long as we are not breaching any rule, it should be fine with you... unless you also have tendencies to think that you are the "owner" of the forum..

Now, since I have edited my post and now that I think you felt offended, I will apologize on that post, would you kindly answer to the original question for I think it is unfair to keep posting things against the topic just because you wanted to bring things in public? Thanks.