Wiping/Washing of the feet

[Talut]

Salam, 

If reading the Quranic text about wudhu:

"O you who believe, when you rise to observe the Salat, you shall wash your faces and your arms to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles." 5:6

Then in another translation (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. 

I don't understand the Zaidi and Sunni position. They take a hadith and then argue about a diffirent grammatic construction which does make the hadith fitting while the verse itself is clear that wiping the heads and feet have to be wiped.

Who can tell me more about this issue and is their grammatica argument a logical one and if not what is the error?

[Ali Hamieh]

                                       

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلَاةِ فَاغْسِلُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُوا بِرُءُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى الْكَعْبَيْنِ وَإِن كُنتُمْ جُنُبًا فَاطَّهَّرُوا وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَىٰ أَوْ عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ مِّنكُم مِّنَ الْغَائِطِ أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فَلَمْ تَجِدُوا مَاءً فَتَيَمَّمُوا صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا فَامْسَحُوا بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُم مِّنْهُ مَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُم مِّنْ حَرَجٍ وَلَٰكِن يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهِّرَكُمْ وَلِيُتِمَّ    نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ  

O you who have believed, when you rise to [perform] prayer, wash your faces and your forearms to the elbows and wipe over your heads and wash your feet to the ankles.

If you know Arabic, they edited the Quranic text that's in English.

The red marked arabic text clearly is referring to wiping the feet and heads, the -false- translation says "and wipe over your heads and wash your feet to the ankles." however in Arabic it clearly says "and wipe over your heads and feet to the ankles.". Quite sad that they edit for their own interests.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Ali Hamieh

[Follower of Truth]

5 hours ago, Talut said:

Salam, 

If reading the Quranic text about wudhu:

"O you who believe, when you rise to observe the Salat, you shall wash your faces and your arms to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles." 5:6

Then in another translation (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. 

I don't understand the Zaidi and Sunni position. They take a hadith and then argue about a diffirent grammatic construction which does make the hadith fitting while the verse itself is clear that wiping the heads and feet have to be wiped.

Who can tell me more about this issue and is their grammatica argument a logical one and if not what is the error?

salam, brother. though i am not scholar i will try to say something about this according to my study.

quran is ultimate guidance for mankind. it is clear and unambiguous i terms of guidance and showing straight path. however in case of matters relating to jurisprudence  it only outlines basic structure and then prophet sm explained it in details through his sayings and deeds.

as for the topic in discussion the reason why ahl l sunnah wash their feet is because there are plenty of authentic narrations from several companions of prophet sm that show us that prophet sm was used to washing his feet. its not true that there is only one hadith regarding it as you mentioned. see chapter on wudu in six major sunni collections.  that's the reason why feet are washed rather than wiping. because we are bound to follow prophet sm. however when one is wearing socks then he is permitted to wipe on his feet.

there are other similar instances. such as quran permits salat al qasr in times of fear and danger as in surah nisa. but rasul sm extended it to any traveling condition whether in fear or in security.

grammatical argument is not a major issue. prophetic deeds are major issue. however giving a copy post from islamqa.com. hope this will help.

[Follower of Truth]

1 hour ago, Talut said:

Salam, 

If reading the Quranic text about wudhu:

"O you who believe, when you rise to observe the Salat, you shall wash your faces and your arms to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles." 5:6

Then in another translation (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. 

I don't understand the Zaidi and Sunni position. They take a hadith and then argue about a diffirent grammatic construction which does make the hadith fitting while the verse itself is clear that wiping the heads and feet have to be wipped.

Who can tell me more about this issue and is their grammatica argument a logical one and if not what is the error?

Why does Allaah mention wiping (or rubbing) the feet during wudoo’ in the verse, “rub (by passing wet hands over) your heads, and your feet up to the ankles” [al-Maa’idah 5:6]? What we know is that we should wash our feet during wudoo’, so why does it say imsahu (rub or wipe)? My friend asked me this question and told me, “I wipe my feet when making wudoo’ and I do not wash them,” and I did not know how to answer. Is there some kind of linguistic miracle in the way the words are put together? What is the reason why it mentions wiping instead of washing?.

Published Date: 2005-03-28

Praise be to Allaah.

 

What must be done in wudoo’ is washing the feet; it is not sufficient to wipe them. Your friend’s understanding of the verse as meaning that the feet may be wiped is not correct. 

The evidence that it is obligatory to wash the feet is the report narrated by al-Bukhaari (163) and Muslim (241) from ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) stayed behind us on a journey and then caught up with us, and we were late in praying ‘Asr. We started doing wudoo’ and wiping out feet, and he called out at the top of his voice: “Woe to the heels from the fire” two or three times. 

Muslim (242) narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saw a man who had not washed his heels and he said, “Woe to the heels from the Fire.” 

Ibn Khuzaymah said: If wiping were sufficient to discharge the obligation, there would have been no warning of the Fire in this case. 

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said:  

There are mutawaatir reports from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which describe his wudoo’ and state that he washed his feet. He is the one who explained the commands of Allaah. There is no report from anyone among the Sahaabah which differs from that, except from ‘Ali, Ibn ‘Abbaas and Anas, but it was narrated that they retracted that. ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Abi Layla said: The companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) are unanimously agreed that the feet should be washed. Narrated by Sa’eed ibn Mansoor. End quote. 

Fath al-Baari, 1/320 

With regard to the verse, it says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“O you who believe! When you intend to offer As-Salaah (the prayer), wash your faces and your hands (forearms) up to the elbows, rub (by passing wet hands over) your heads, and (wash) your feet up to the ankles”

[al-Maa’idah 5:6] 

This does not indicate that it is permissible to wipe the feet. The reason for this is that there are two readings of this verse. 

1 – Wa arjulakum (and your feet), with a fathah on the laam. In this case the word “feet” is mentioned in conjunction with the word wajh (face), and the face is to be washed, so the feet are to be washed too. So it is as if the verse is basically saying: “Wash your faces, your arms up to the elbows and your feet up to the ankles, and wipe your heads,” but mention of washing the feet is put after mention of wiping the head so as to indicate that this is the order in which the parts of the body are washed in wudoo’: washing the face, then the arms, then wiping the head, then washing the feet. 

See al-Majmoo’, 1/471 

2 – Wa arjulikum, with a kasrah on the laam. In this case it is mentioned in conjunction with the word ra’s (head), and the head is to be wiped, so the feet are to be wiped too. 

But the Sunnah shows that one may wipe over the feet only when wearing leather slippers or socks, subject to the conditions that are well known in the Sunnah. 

See al-Majmoo’, 1/450; al-Ikhtiyaaraat, p. 13 

For more information on the conditions for wiping over the socks, please see question no. 9640. 

Thus it is clear that in neither reading does the verse indicate that the feet may be wiped. Rather it indicates that it is obligatory to wash the feet, or to wipe over the socks if one is wearing socks. 

Some of the scholars, based on the second reading, are of the view that the reason why wiping is mentioned with regard to the feet although they are to be washed is to indicate that one should be economical in using water when washing the feet, because people are usually lavish with water when washing them. So the verse enjoins wiping in the sense of washing them without being extravagant in the use of water. 

Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni, 1/186: 

It may be that what is meant by wiping is washing lightly. Abu ‘Ali al-Faarisi said: The Arabs call a light washing mash (wiping) and say tamassahtu li’l-salaah (literally “I wiped myself for prayer”) meaning I did wudoo’. End quote. 

Ibn Taymiyah said: 

Mentioning wiping with regard to the feet is an indication that one should not use too much water on the feet, because people are usually extravagant in using water for that. End quote. 

Manhaaj al-Sunnah, 4/174 

And Allaah knows best.

[Talut]

12 minutes ago, Follower of Truth said:

salam, brother

grammatical argument is not a major issue. prophetic deeds are major issue. however giving a copy post from islamqa.com. hope this will help.

Wa alaykum Salam,

I see brother, thank you for your explanation, but isn't the Quran definitive and absolute?

Can a hadith abrogate a Quranic verse?

Because the ahaadith give no explanations but they say something entirely diffirent. 

One cannot say something else that contradicts the meaning of the verse unless one can explain that the verse is simmilar to the ahaadith because of some grammatical laws. 

Only then ...

Edited March 27, 2016 by Talut

[Follower of Truth]

4 minutes ago, Talut said:

I see brother, thank you for your explanation, but isn't the Quran definitive and absolute?

Can a hadith abrogate a Quranic verse?

Because the ahaadith give no explanations but they say something entirely diffirent. 

One cannot say soething else as long it contradicts the meaning of the verse unless one can explain that it is simmilar by grammatical laws. 

Only then ...

i gave a copy from islamqa.com. please read it. then respond to me.

[Talut]

9 minutes ago, Follower of Truth said:

i gave a copy from islamqa.com. please read it. then respond to me.

I prefer to discuss it live in own wordings without copy and paste. Because otherwise it becomes a links-discussion.

Above all I already checked both sides of the matter and I realized that we have to hold on to the explicit meaning of the verse. 

Ahadith that say something else are no proof. Unless we put them above Quran which is unbearable.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Talut

[Follower of Truth]

3 minutes ago, Talut said:

I prefer to discuss it live in own wordigs without copy and paste. Because otherwise it becomes a links-discussion.

when a readymade stuff is available why not availing it. i hope no problem if you just read it. after your reading notify me. i will respond inshallah according to my ability.

[Talut]

26 minutes ago, Follower of Truth said:

This does not indicate that it is permissible to wipe the feet. The reason for this is that there are two readings of this verse. 

1 – Wa arjulakum (and your feet), with a fathah on the laam. In this case the word “feet” is mentioned in conjunction with the word wajh (face), and the face is to be washed, so the feet are to be washed too. So it is as if the verse is basically saying: “Wash your faces, your arms up to the elbows and your feet up to the ankles, and wipe your heads,” but mention of washing the feet is put after mention of wiping the head so as to indicate that this is the order in which the parts of the body are washed in wudoo’: washing the face, then the arms, then wiping the head, then washing the feet. 

See al-Majmoo’, 1/471 

2 – Wa arjulikum, with a kasrah on the laam. In this case it is mentioned in conjunction with the word ra’s (head), and the head is to be wiped, so the feet are to be wiped too. 

I already know this link. 

The above part should be discussed as the main focus should be on what the verse really is saying. 

After that we can tell which ahaadith are making sense and which are not as the Quran is definitive and absolute. 

Sunnah can never abrogate Quran.

I'm however not trying to prove which side is right or wrong. I am just looking for truth which is not a sectarian property or defined by a certain name although I'm whole-heartedly convinced about the superiority of the Ahl al-Bayt a.s. and their utmost importance for muslims together with the Noble Quran.

If the verse says wash the feet, then we should wash it. If it says wipe the feet then we should wipe it.

Just truth, not sunni or shia, this or that.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Talut

[أبو فاطمة المحمدي]

1 hour ago, Follower of Truth said:

What must be done in wudoo’ is washing the feet; it is not sufficient to wipe them. Your friend’s understanding of the verse as meaning that the feet may be wiped is not correct. 

What then about the Prophet's (peace be upon him and his family) understanding of that verse? The Messenger of Allah himself stated that the verse commands the WIPING of the feet, according to this sahih Sunni hadith recorded by Imam Abu Dawud in his Sunan, vol. 2, p. 358, # 858:

حدثنا الحسن بن علي حدثنا هشام بن عبد الملك والحجاج بن منهال قالا حدثنا همام حدثنا إسحق بن عبد الله ابن أبي طلحة عن علي بن يحيى بن خلاد عن أبيه عن عمه رفاعة بن رافع بمعناه قال فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إنها لا تتم صلاة أحدكم حتى يسبغ الوضوء كما أمره الله عز وجل فيغسل وجهه ويديه إلى المرفقين ويمسح برأسه ورجليه إلى الكعبين

Al-Hasan b. 'Ali - Hisham b. 'Abd al-Malik and al-Hajjaj b. Minhal - Hammam - Ishaq b. 'Abd Allah b. Abi Talhah - 'Ali b. Yahya b. Khallad - his father - his uncle, Rifa'ah b. Rafi, with similar meaning (as the previous hadith):

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: "The salat of one of you is not complete until he perfects the wudu as Allah the Most High has ordered him: he washes his face and his hands until the elbows, and he wipes his head and his feet until the ankles."

Shaykh al-Albani grades it "sahih."

Here, the Prophet explicitly and clearly gives us the tafsir of that verse: it commands that the feet must be wiped. Whoever does not do this has a defective wudu.

Quote

With regard to the verse, it says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“O you who believe! When you intend to offer As-Salaah (the prayer), wash your faces and your hands (forearms) up to the elbows, rub (by passing wet hands over) your heads, and (wash) your feet up to the ankles”

[al-Maa’idah 5:6] 

This does not indicate that it is permissible to wipe the feet. The reason for this is that there are two readings of this verse. 

1 – Wa arjulakum (and your feet), with a fathah on the laam. In this case the word “feet” is mentioned in conjunction with the word wajh (face), and the face is to be washed, so the feet are to be washed too. So it is as if the verse is basically saying: “Wash your faces, your arms up to the elbows and your feet up to the ankles, and wipe your heads,” but mention of washing the feet is put after mention of wiping the head so as to indicate that this is the order in which the parts of the body are washed in wudoo’: washing the face, then the arms, then wiping the head, then washing the feet. 

See al-Majmoo’, 1/471 

This is a moot point. The conjunction in Arabic may conjoin the two conjuncts in both their hukm (ruling) and their grammar, or may conjoin them in their hukm (ruling) only without the grammar. Both functions of the coordinating conjunction "wa" are in the Qur'an. For instance, this verse contains the same grammatical format as that of the Verse of Wudu:

وَأَذَانٌ مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ إِلَى النَّاسِ يَوْمَ الْحَجِّ الْأَكْبَرِ أَنَّ اللَّهَ بَرِيءٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ وَرَسُولُهُ فَإِن تُبْتُمْ فَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَإِن تَوَلَّيْتُمْ فَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّكُمْ غَيْرُ مُعْجِزِي اللَّهِ وَبَشِّرِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ

The conjunction has conjoined them in hukm only, and not in grammar. This is exactly what we have in the Verse of Wudu also.

Basically, the Ahl al-Sunnah have no argument, with regards to the Verse of Wudu - neither textual nor grammatical.

Edited March 27, 2016 by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

[certainclarity]

Brother Ali, has explained it well enough.

What some ignorant translators have done is that they translated the word MAASEH, as wash.Prior to the word MAASEH, the word GHASALAH, from which the word Ghusl comes is used, which means wash, but it is used for face and hands.

أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلَاةِ فَاغْسِلُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُوا بِرُءُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى الْكَعْبَيْنِ

So wash face and hands= Ghusl= Ghasalah غسل

wipe head and feet = Maaseh مسح

Edited March 27, 2016 by certainclarity

[Talut]

Salam, 

Thank you brother Ali and Abu Fatimah for your elaborating reply.

In the last part of the reply of brother Follower of Truth, however the link is jumping to another position and it goes from the claim that the feet fall under 'wash' to the claim that it actually at the same time falls under 'wipe' but then it becomes an interpretation matter:

 

Quote

 

Some of the scholars, based on the second reading, are of the view that the reason why wiping is mentioned with regard to the feet although they are to be washed is to indicate that one should be economical in using water when washing the feet, because people are usually lavish with water when washing them. So the verse enjoins wiping in the sense of washing them without being extravagant in the use of water. 

Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni, 1/186: 

It may be that what is meant by wiping is washing lightly. Abu ‘Ali al-Faarisi said: The Arabs call a light washing mash (wiping) and say tamassahtu li’l-salaah (literally “I wiped myself for prayer”) meaning I did wudoo’. End quote. 

Ibn Taymiyah said: 

Mentioning wiping with regard to the feet is an indication that one should not use too much water on the feet, because people are usually extravagant in using water for that. End quote. 

Manhaaj al-Sunnah, 4/174 

 

It's not consistent.

What is your (all) opinion about this?



 

Edited March 27, 2016 by Talut

[أبو فاطمة المحمدي]

13 minutes ago, Talut said:

Salam, 

Thank you brother Ali and Abu Fatimah for your elaborating reply.

In the last part of the reply of brother Follower of Truth, however the link is jumping to another position and it goes from the claim that the feet fall under 'wash' to the claim that it actually at the same time falls under 'wipe' but then it becomes an interpretation matter:

It's not consistent.

What is your (all) opinion about this?

There are two mutawatir recitations of that word in the verse: arjulakum and arjulikum. Both of them are mutawatir, and both of them are correct. The term arjulikum leaves absolutely no room for manipulation: it means wiping, and there is absolutely no way to play games with it. So, Sunnis are confused. Does the same verse contradict itself through its dual recitations? Instead of agreeing with the obvious - that both terms have the same meaning - Sunnis try to play games with the meaning of "wipe." So, they claim that to "wipe" means to "wash lightly." However, they have forgotten that the same verse has mentioned "wipe" twice:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلَاةِ فَاغْسِلُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُوا بِرُءُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى الْكَعْبَيْنِ وَإِن كُنتُمْ جُنُبًا فَاطَّهَّرُوا وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَىٰ أَوْ عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ مِّنكُم مِّنَ الْغَائِطِ أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فَلَمْ تَجِدُوا مَاءً فَتَيَمَّمُوا صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا فَامْسَحُوا بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُم مِّنْهُ مَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُم مِّنْ حَرَجٍ وَلَٰكِن يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهِّرَكُمْ وَلِيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ

O you who have faith! When you stand up for prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe a part of your heads and your feet, up to the ankles. If you are junub, purify yourselves. But if you are sick, or on a journey, or any of you has come from the toilet, or you have touched women, and you cannot find water, then make tayammum with clean ground and wipe a part of your faces and your hands with it. Allah does not desire to put you to hardship, but He desires to purify you, and to complete His blessing upon you so that you may give thanks.

Are we to wash lightly in tayammum too?

[Talut]

8 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Does the same verse contradict itself through its dual recitations? 

Here I laughed but I shouldn't because it's a serious matter.

I however didn't look at it that way. Thank you.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Talut

[certainclarity]

I am at an awe, how Arabs and saudi Arabs whose language is arabic, dont understand their own language, and can not differentiate  between the words ghusl and maasah. 

 

[Talut]

5 minutes ago, certainclarity said:

I am at an awe, how Arabs and saudi Arabs whose language is arabic, dont understand their own language, and can not differentiate  between the words ghusl and maasah. 

 

I believe that this is what happens when one wants to reconcile contradictions or egalize things (Quran and narrations) or persons (Ahl Al-Bayt and Sahaba) which or who are not equal at all.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Talut

[أبو فاطمة المحمدي]

3 minutes ago, certainclarity said:

I am at an awe, how Arabs and saudi Arabs whose language is arabic, dont understand their own language, and can not differentiate  between the words ghusl and maasah.

Akhi, they just want to force the verse to agree with their contradictory ahadith!

[certainclarity]

Sorry to say this is total stupidity, I cant blame those who dont have an understanding of Arabic, but those whose language is Arabic, it is obvious.The foot steps of Satan and its followers are beyond obvious.

[Talut]

23 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Are we to wash lightly in tayammum too?

But for the sake of argument, the other can say that in the case of Tayyamum there was no prequel of two other limbs (first face and arms and then head and feet) as was the case with wudhu.

They connected limbs from the last part (feet) to an action (wash) performed in the first part (arms and face) while in Tayyamum it's only face and hands.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Talut

[Talut]

12 minutes ago, certainclarity said:

Sorry to say this is total stupidity, I cant blame those who dont have an understanding of Arabic, but those whose language is Arabic, it is obvious.The foot steps of Satan and its followers are beyond obvious.

My problem is that I do not know Arabic. I should learn it because it seems people do all to alter the truth and deceive.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Talut

[أبو فاطمة المحمدي]

14 minutes ago, Talut said:

But for the sake of argument, the other can say that in the case of Tayyamum there was no prequel of two other limbs (first face and arms and then head and feet) as was the case with wudhu.

They connected limbs from the last part (feet) to an action (wash) performed in the first part (arms and face). 

That is a plainly ridiculous argument. Whoever makes that claim should bring us other similar examples from the Qur'an. Besides, it contradicts this report cited by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir under the Verse of Wudu:

وقال ابن جرير : حدثنا علي بن سهل ، حدثنا مؤمل حدثنا حماد حدثنا عاصم الأحول ، عن أنس قال : نزل القرآن بالمسح ، والسنة الغسل . وهذا أيضا إسناد صحيح .

Ibn Jarir - 'Ali b. Sahl - Muammal - Hammad - 'Asim al-Ahwal - Anas:

The Qur'an was revealed with wiping, and the Sunnah is to wash."

And this chain is also sahih.

Anas here expresses the root of this great Sunni confusion.

Edited March 27, 2016 by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

[Talut]

31 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Anas here expresses the root of this great Sunni confusion.

It definitely is.

[GreatChineseFall]

5 hours ago, Talut said:

I don't understand the Zaidi and Sunni position. They take a hadith and then argue about a diffirent grammatic construction which does make the hadith fitting while the verse itself is clear that wiping the heads and feet have to be wiped.

 

3 hours ago, Talut said:

Can a hadith abrogate a Quranic verse?

I wish you would say the same about shia's and ayat at-Tatheer and ask the same questions.

1 hour ago, Talut said:

It definitely is.

I don't see the problem, even if you don't allow any other translation. The command of Allah is to wipe your feet, the Sunnah is to wash them. There is no command to either wash or wipe your mouth, your ears, but it is a Sunnah. Do people wash or wipe their mouth?

Also if you wash your feet, you wipe them, it might be more problematic if it was the other way around.

1 hour ago, Talut said:

I believe that this is what happens when one wants to reconcile contradictions or egalize things (Quran and narrations) or persons (Ahl Al-Bayt and Sahaba) which or who are not equal at all.

Where is the contradiction?

Edited March 27, 2016 by GreatChineseFall

[أبو فاطمة المحمدي]

4 minutes ago, GreatChineseFall said:

I don't see the problem, even if you don't allow any other translation. The command of Allah is to wipe your feet, the Sunnah is to wash them. There is no command to either wash or wipe your mouth, your ears, but it is a Sunnah. Do people wash or wipe their mouth?

Also if you wash your feet, you wipe them, it might be more problematic if it was the other way around.

Where is the contradiction?

Did you read what you wrote?

You really have a huge talent for making ridiculous statements. I still remember your claim that your eyes can see something which has no image, form or body. These are why I no longer take you seriously.

[GreatChineseFall]

39 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

You really have a huge talent for making ridiculous statements. I still remember your claim that your eyes can see something which has no image, form or body. These are why I no longer take you seriously.

Yeah I remember that too, I gave you an opportunity to end the debate in one post and you ran away like a coward. Get off your high horse.

Edited March 27, 2016 by GreatChineseFall

[أبو فاطمة المحمدي]

3 minutes ago, GreatChineseFall said:

Yeah I remember that too, I gave you an opportunity to end the debate in one post and you ran away like a coward. Get of your high horse.

Your super-eyes should be able to see me right now, I guess. If you can see what has no shape, image, form or body, you should be able to see all things. Isn't it?

Now, getting back to your ridiculous submission:

18 minutes ago, GreatChineseFall said:

I don't see the problem, even if you don't allow any other translation. The command of Allah is to wipe your feet, the Sunnah is to wash them. There is no command to either wash or wipe your mouth, your ears, but it is a Sunnah. Do people wash or wipe their mouth?

Also if you wash your feet, you wipe them, it might be more problematic if it was the other way around.

Perhaps, you forgot that the "feet" are conjoined to the "heads" in the verse - which means that they both have the same hukm. So, you have to wipe your feet also WITHOUT washing them.

 

[Talut]

30 minutes ago, GreatChineseFall said:

I don't see the problem, even if you don't allow any other translation. The command of Allah is to wipe your feet, the Sunnah is to wash them. There is no command to either wash or wipe your mouth, your ears, but it is a Sunnah. Do people wash or wipe their mouth?

Also if you wash your feet, you wipe them, it might be more problematic if it was the other way around.

Is it a Sunnah in a way that one gets an extra reward for it or a Sunnah which if not followed invalidates ones wudhu?

If washing is wiping then these distinctions are meaningless.

It's however strange that things are being switched. Confusing.



 

Edited March 27, 2016 by Talut

[GreatChineseFall]

24 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Your super-eyes should be able to see me right now, I guess. If you can see what has no shape, image, form or body, you should be able to see all things. Isn't it?

It seems you have trouble understanding the difference between the possibility and the actuality of something, but I know you are trying to avoid the fact that you essentially made up an entire interpretation about prophet Musa asking to see Allah. As I said, you can end it in one sentence but you'll keep running away without ever admitting that you made it up.

24 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Perhaps, you forgot that the "feet" are conjoined to the "heads" in the verse - which means that they both have the same hukm. So, you have to wipe your feet also WITHOUT washing them.

Prove that you have to wipe them without washing them. So your wudu is invalidated if you was your head?

23 minutes ago, Talut said:

Is it a Sunnah in a way that one gets an extra reward for it or a Sunnah which if not followed invalidates ones wudhu?

It depends on how you read these narrations, if it is such that the Prophet always washed his feet only in exceptional cases not, then it becomes the second. If not, then the first. But that is not really the issue. The point is that narrating that the Prophet washed them is in no way contradicting the Qur'an, whatever value you give to these narrations. You can even make a case that the Prophet washed them but it was his personal choice to do that only. I don't really care, all I care about is the fact that people are so biased that they want to invalidate narrations while there is absolutely no reason to do so.

Edited March 27, 2016 by GreatChineseFall

[Talut]

23 minutes ago, GreatChineseFall said:

It depends on how you read these narrations, if it is such that the Prophet always washed his feet only in exceptional cases, then it becomes the second. If not, then the first. But that is not really the issue.

It doesn't depend on how you read those translations. It depends on what the Quran tells us to do.


 

23 minutes ago, GreatChineseFall said:

The point is that narrating that the Prophet washed them is in no way contradicting the Qur'an, whatever value you give to these narrations. You can even make a case that the Prophet washed them but it was his personal choice to do that only.

If you mean that the Prophet s.a.w. contradicted the Quran and believed that it was not sufficient to wipe the feet then I cannot accept that and am free of what you claim.


 

23 minutes ago, GreatChineseFall said:

I don't really care, all I care about is the fact that people are so biased that they want to invalidate narrations while there is absolutely no reason to do so.

Only when you doubt the intentions of people.



 

Edited March 27, 2016 by Talut

[GreatChineseFall]

4 minutes ago, Talut said:

It doesn't depend on how you read those translations. It depends on what the Quran tells us to do.

 

5 minutes ago, Talut said:

If you mean that the Prophet s.a.w. contradicted the Quran and believed that it was not sufficient to wipe the feet then I cannot accept that and am free of what you claim.

If the Qur'an doesn't explicitly tells us to not wash them, then there is no contradiction. Again, do you do wudu exactly as it is written in the Qur'an and nothing else?

7 minutes ago, Talut said:

Only when you doubt the intentions of people.

And what could anyone possibly gain by fabricating this? What could Bani Umayya or Bani Abbas gain in any way, shape or form gain from this? Why would anyone fabricate this?

[Talut]

To wash the two feet up to the anckles is an obligatory act according to all Sunni madahib which if not followed invalidates one wudhu:

http://www.myreligionislam.com/detail.asp?Aid=6073

[GreatChineseFall]

4 minutes ago, Talut said:

To wash the two feet up to the anckles is an obligatory act according to all Sunni madahib which if not followed invalidates one wudhu:

http://www.myreligionislam.com/detail.asp?Aid=6073

I know that, but I am pretty sure that they don't declare takfir on anyone for this reason.

[Talut]

8 minutes ago, GreatChineseFall said:

If the Qur'an doesn't explicitly tells us to not wash them, then there is no contradiction. 

Who told you that?


 

17 minutes ago, GreatChineseFall said:

And what could anyone possibly gain by fabricating this? What could Bani Umayya or Bani Abbas gain in any way, shape or form gain from this? Why would anyone fabricate this?

First research has to be done to find out what is right and what is not. 

After that one can ponder about why people did this or that which is actually not interresting to me when it comes to issues like this. 

It is anyway funny that you ascribe this narration to the Ummayads and the Abbasides. 

[Talut]

16 minutes ago, GreatChineseFall said:

I know that, but I am pretty sure that they don't declare takfir on anyone for this reason.

Who said I am even interrested in this? What matters to me is what is the right way of wudhu and what is not. 
 

[GreatChineseFall]

3 minutes ago, Talut said:

Who told you that?

That is what I find reasonable, if you disagree you can explain to me how it's contradicting.

4 minutes ago, Talut said:

First research has to be done to find out what is right and what is not. 

After that one can ponder about why people did this or that which is actually not interresting to me when it comes to issues like this. 

It is anyway funny that you ascribe this narration to the Ummayads and the Abbasides. 

Research is done by authenticating and de-authenticating what is narrated. You are free to propose a system for doing that.

They were an example because that's what people usually claim, I also said anyone for further clarification.