Praise be to Allaah.

You must repeat and make up those prayers which you did when you were wiping your socks although you had not been in a state of tahaarah when you put them on.

Praise be to Allaah.

It is permissible to wipe over them instead of washing one's feet when doing wudoo’, if they were put on when one was in a state of tahaarah (purity), unless the holes are bigger than is ordinarily acceptable, or the socks are so thin that the feet would be judged to be naked because they show the colour of skin beneath them.

Praise be to Allaah.

You cannot wipe over your socks in this case, because you put the first sock on before completing the act of purification (wudoo’ or ghusl).

Praise be to Allaah. 

The correct view is that it is permissible to wipe over khuff (leather slippers which cover the foot and ankle) or socks that have holes in them. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) allowed wiping over khuff and he did not stipulate any condition that they should be whole and free of holes or tears, especially since the khuff of his companions were not free of holes or tears. If this had any effect on whether one could wipe over them, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would have stated that clearly, for one of the basic principles of usool al-fiqh is that it is not permitted to delay explaining something when it is needed.

Imaam Sufyaan al-Thawri (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “One may wipe over the khuff so long as it is still clinging to the feet. Were the khuff of the Muhaajireen and Ansaar anything but full of holes and tears?” (Narrated by ‘Abd al-Razzaaq in al-Musanaaf, 1/194)

Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Fataawa (21/174): When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) gave the command to wipe over the khuff, he knew what the normal state of affairs was, and he did not stipulate the condition that the socks should be whole and free of any faults. His command should be taken as general in meaning and it should not be restricted unless there is any shar’i evidence for doing so. What is implied by the wording is that any khuff that people wear and walk about in may be wiped over, even if they have holes or are worn out, without defining the acceptable extent for these holes and tears, because even such a definition would require evidence…” 

This is also the view of Ishaaq, Ibn al-Mubaarak, Ibn ‘Uyaynah and Abu Thawr.

 Imaam al-Shaafa'i and Ahmad – according to the well-known views narrated from them – said that it is not permissible to wipe over the khuff or socks so long as there are any holes or tears in the place where it is obligatory to do wudoo’. Abu Haneefah and Maalik differentiated between small holes and large holes. 

But the correct view is the first view quoted above, which is that it is permissible to wipe over the khuff or socks so long as they are still clinging to the feet and it is still possible to walk in them. 

It is also correct to wipe over socks through which the skin can be seen, because the permission to wipe over socks is general and no report of any restriction has been narrated. This implies that any socks which people wear may be wiped over. This is what is implied by those who say that it is permissible to wipe over khuff that are worn out, so long as it is still possible to walk in them. 

Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) mentioned in al-Majmoo’ (1/502) that even if a person were to wear khuff made of glass, if it were possible to walk in them then it would be permissible to wipe over them, even though the skin beneath them would be visible… 

And Allaah knows best. 

Praise be to Allaah.  

Four conditions apply to wiping over the socks. 

The first condition:

That they should have been put on when one was in a state of tahaarah (purity, i.e., when one has wudoo’). The evidence for that is what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to al-Mugheerah ibn Shu’bah: “Don’t worry, because I put them one when I was clean.” 

The second condition:

That the khufoof (leather slippers which cover the ankle) or socks should be taahir (pure). If they are naajis (impure) then it is not permissible to wipe over them. The daleel for that is that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) led his companions in prayer one day wearing shoes, which he took off whilst he was praying. He said that Jibreel had told him that there was something dirty on them. This was narrated by Ahmad from the hadeeth of Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (may Allaah be pleased with him) in his Musnad. This indicates that it is not permissible to pray wearing anything that is naajis, because if the naajis thing is wiped over, the person will be contaminated by that najaasah (impurity), so he cannot be considered to be taahir (pure). 

The third condition:

They may be wiped over when one is purifying oneself from minor impurity (i.e., doing wudoo’ after passing wind, urine or stools), not when one is in a state of janaabah (major impurity following sexual activity) or when ghusl is required. The evidence for that is the hadeeth of Safwaan ibn ‘Assaal (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded us, when we were travelling, not to remove our khufoof for three days and three nights, except in the case of janaabah. But we could keep them on and wipe over them in the case of stools, urine and sleeping.” This was narrated by Ahmad from the hadeeth of Safwaan ibn ‘Assaal (may Allaah be pleased with him) in his Musnad. So the condition is that wiping the socks may be done when purifying oneself (doing wudoo’) from minor impurity, and it is not permissible in the case of major impurity, because of the hadeeth which we have mentioned here. 

The fourth condition:

That the wiping may be done within the time specified by sharee’ah, which is one day and one night in the case of one who is not travelling, and three days and three nights in the case of one who is travelling. This is because of the hadeeth of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said: “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) stated one day and one night for the one who is not travelling, and three days and three nights for the one who is travelling, i.e., for wiping over the khufoof.” This was narrated by Muslim. This period starts from the first time one wipes over the socks when doing wudoo’ after some minor impurity, and it ends twenty-four later for the one who is not travelling, and seventy-two hours later for the one who is travelling. So if we assume that a person purifies himself for Fajr prayer on Tuesday and remains taahir (pure, i.e., keeps his wudoo’) until ‘Isha prayer on Tuesday evening, then he sleeps and wakes up to pray Fajr on Wednesday, and he wipes his socks at five o’clock zawaali time , then the period begins from 5 a.m. on Wednesday and lasts until 5 a.m. on Thursday. If we assume that he wiped his socks before 5 a.m then he can pray Fajr on Thursday with this wiping and pray as much as he wants as long as he remains taahir, because according to the most correct scholarly opinion, wudoo’ is not broken when the time period for wiping over the socks expires. That is because the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not set a time limit for tahaarah, rather he set a time limit for wiping over the socks. Once that time limit expires, one cannot wipe over the socks again, but if a person remains in a state of tahaarah then his tahaarah is still valid, because this is what is implied by the shar’i evidence, and whatever is proven by shar’i evidence cannot be invalidated unless there is further shar’i evidence to that effect. There is no evidence to suggest that wudoo’ is broken when the time limit for wiping over the socks expires, because what the basic principle is that he remains as he is (i.e., taahir) until it becomes apparent that this is no longer the case.  

These are the conditions which apply to wiping over the khufoof. There are other conditions which were mentioned by some of the scholars, but some of these are subject to further debate. 

With regard to the beginning of the period when one may wipe over the slippers or socks, it begins from the first time one wipes over them after breaking one’s wudoo’, not from the moment one puts them on. See the answer to question no. 9640. 

The way in which one wipes over them is to put one’s wet fingers on the toes then pass them over the feet to the shin; the right foot should be wiped with the right hand and the left foot with the left hand. The fingers should be spread when wiping and it should not be repeated. 

(See al-Mulakhkhas al-Fiqhi by al-Fawzaan, 1/43). 

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “This means that what should be wiped is the top of the sock, passing one's fingers from the toes to the shin only, and one should wipe with both hands over both feet together, i.e., the right hand should wipe the right foot and the left hand should wipe the left foot at the same time, just as one wipes the ears, because this is the apparent meaning of the Sunnah, as al-Mugheerah ibn Shu’bah said, ‘Then he wiped them both.’ He did not say that he started with the right, rather that he ‘wiped them both’. So this is the apparent meaning of the Sunnah. If we assume that he cannot use one of his hands then he should start with the right before the left. Many people wipe the right foot with both hands then the left foot with both hands, but there is no basis for this as far as I know. No matter how it is done, wiping the top of the slipper (or sock) is sufficient but what we have said here is best.” 

(See Fataawa al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah, vol. 1, p. 250) 

You should not wipe the sides or back of the sock because there is no report concerning that. 

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said: “Someone may say that it is the bottom of the slipper or sock that should be wiped, because this is what is in contact with dust and dirt. But if we think about it we will see that wiping the top of the sock is what makes sense, because this wiping is not for the purpose of cleaning, rather it is an act of worship; if we were to wipe the bottom of the sock that would make it more dirty.” And Allaah knows best. 

See al-Sharh al-Mumti’ by Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, vol. 1, p. 213.

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

Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

The correct view is that his wudoo’ is not invalidated when the period for wiping over the socks comes to an end. For example, if this times end at 12 noon, but you keep your wudoo’ until night time, you still have wudoo’. That is because there is no evidence to suggest that wudoo’ is broken by the time for wiping over the socks coming to an end. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) set the time limit for wiping over the socks; he did not set a time limit for wudoo’. There is a principle that the seeker of knowledge should pay attention to, which is that what is proven by the shar’i evidence cannot be invalidated without further shar’i evidence, because what is proven remains as it is.

If he takes off his leather slippers (khufoof) or socks after wiping over them that does not invalidate his wudoo’, according to the correct scholarly view, because when a person wipes over his socks, he has completed his wudoo’ according to what is implied by the shar’i evidence. So if he takes them off, this wudoo’ is still valid according to the shar’i evidence and cannot be broken except by something for which there is shar’i evidence. There is no evidence to indicate that taking off leather slippers or socks that have been wiped invalidates wudoo’. On this basis, then, his wudoo’ remains valid. This was the view favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah and a group of the scholars. But if he puts his socks back on after that and breaks his wudoo’, then he wants to wipe over them again, that is not allowed, because he has to put the socks on after doing wudoo’ in which he washed his feet, according to what was stated by the scholars. And Allaah knows best.

The majority of scholars, including Abu Haneefah, Maalik and al-Shaafa’i, are of the view that it is better to wash the feet. They said: that is because the basic principle is washing the feet, so that is better. 

See al-Majmoo’, 1/502 

Imam Ahmad was of the view that wiping over the socks is better. He gave the following evidence for that: 

1 – It is easier, and the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was never given the choice between two things but he chose the easier of the two, so long as it was not a sin; if it was a sin he would be the furthest removed of the people from it. Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3560) and Muslim (2327). 

2 – It is a concession, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah loves concessions to be taken as He hates sin to be committed.” Narrated by Ahmad, 5832; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Irwa’ al-Ghaleel, 564. 

3 – Wiping over the socks involves being different from the people of bid’ah who reject it, such as the Khaarijis and Raafidis. 

There are many ahaadeeth from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which indicate that he did both: he washed his feet and he wiped over his khuffayn (leather slippers). This led some scholars to say that wiping and washing are the same. This was the view favoured by Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allaah have mercy on him). 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim were of the view that either may be better depending on the circumstances of his feet. If a person is wearing socks it is better to wipe over them, and if his feet are bare, it is better to wash them, and he should not put socks on in order to wipe over them. 

This is indicated by the hadeeth of al-Mugheerah ibn Shu’bah (may Allaah have mercy on him) who wanted to take off the Prophet’s khuffayn in order to wash his feet. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to him: “Leave them, for I put them on pure,” so he wiped over them.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 206; Muslim, 274. This indicates that wiping is better for one who is wearing socks. 

This is also indicated by the report narrated by al-Tirmidhi (96) from Safwaan ibn ‘Assaal (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to tell us when we were travelling not to take off our kufoof for three days and nights, except in the case of janaabah, but if one defecated, urinated or slept (there was no need to take them off). Classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Irwa’ al-Ghaleel, 104. The command to wipe indicates that it is better, but that applies to one who is wearing socks. 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: 

Conclusion: what is better for each one is that which is suited to his circumstances. For the one whose feet are bare, it is better for him to wash them, and he should not put on socks so that he can wipe over them, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to wash his feet when they were bare, and he would wipe over them if he was wearing khufoof. End quote from al-Insaaf, 1/378 

Ibn al-Qayyim said in Zaad al-Ma’aad (1/199): 

He is not required to do more than is required with regard to the situation of his feet. If he is wearing khufoof, he should wipe over them and not take them off, and if his feet are bare he should wash them, and he should not put on socks so that he can wipe over them. This is the most correct opinion concerning the issue of whether wiping or washing is better. This is the view of our Shaykh (i.e., Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah). End quote.

The scholars differed concerning the ruling on one who does wudoo’ and wipes over his socks, then takes them off. 

Some scholars say that it is sufficient for him to wash his feet, and his wudoo’ is completed thereby. 

This is a weak view, because wudoo’ requires continuity, i.e., there should not be a long time between the washing of the various parts, rather they should be washed one after another, in a continuous sequence. 

Hence Ibn Qudaamah (may Allaah have mercy on him) narrated in al-Mughni (1/367) that this view is based on the idea that there is no need for continuity in wudoo’, and this is weak. 

Others said that the person’s wudoo’ is invalidated thereby, and if he wants to pray he has to repeat his wudoo’. They quoted as evidence the fact that wiping takes the place of washing, and if the socks are removed the purity of the feet is no longer valid, because now they are unwashed and unwiped. If the purity of the feet is invalidated then the entire wudoo’ is invalidated because it cannot be divided up. This view was favoured by Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him), as is stated in his Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 10/113. 

Yet others said that his wudoo’ is not invalidated thereby unless he breaks his wudoo’ in some other way (by breaking wind etc). This was the view of a number of the salaf, including Qataadah, al-Hasan al-Basri and Ibn Abi Layla. It was supported by Ibn Hazm in al-Muhalla (1/105), and was the view favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn al-Mundhir. Al-Nawawi said in al-Majmoo’ (1/557): this is the strongest view. 

They quoted a number of things as evidence for that: 

1 – That purity is not invalidated except by hadath (breaking one's wudoo’ by breaking wind etc.) and taking off the socks is not hadath. 

2 – The purity of one who wipes over his socks is established by shar’i evidence, and it cannot be ruled to be invalid except by further shar’i evidence, and there is no evidence to indicate that purity is invalidated by taking off the socks. 

3 – The analogy with shaving the hair after doing wudoo’. If a person does wudoo’ and wipes over his hair, then shaves his head, he remains in a state of purity and it is not invalidated by that. The same applies to one who wipes over his socks then takes them off. 

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said: 

If a person takes off his socks after wiping over them, his wudoo’ is not invalidated thereby, and he may pray as he likes until he breaks his wudoo’ (hadath), according to the correct view.  

End quote, from Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 11/193. 

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 

The saheeh Sunnah indicates that the time for wiping over the khuffayn (leather slippers) for one who is not travelling is one day and one night, and for one who is travelling it is three days and nights. Wiping over the socks is like wiping over the khuffayn. 

Muslim (276) narrated that Shurayh ibn Haani’ said: I came to ‘Aa’ishah and asked her about wiping over the khuffayn. She said: “You should go and ask Ibn Abi Taalib, for he used to travel with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).” So we asked him and he said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) stipulated three days and nights for the traveller, and one day and night for the one who is not travelling.” 

Al-Tirmidhi (95), Abu Dawood (157) and Ibn Maajah (553) narrated from Khuzaymah ibn Thaabit (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was asked about wiping over the khuffayn and he said: “For the traveller, three and for the non-traveller, one day.” Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi. 

Al-Tirmidhi (96), al-Nasaa’i (127) and Ibn Maajah (478) narrated that Safwaan ibn ‘Assaal (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to command us when we were travelling not to take off our leather slippers for three days and nights, except in the case of janaabah, but not in the case of defecating, urinating or sleeping.” This hadeeth was classed as hasan by al-Albaani. 

Secondly: 

The most correct view of the fuqaha’ is that the period begins from the first time a person wipes over his leather slippers after breaking his wudoo’, not from the time when he put them on or from the first time he broke his wudoo’ after putting them on. So if a person does wudoo’ for Fajr prayer, and puts on his leather slippers, then he breaks his wudoo’ at nine o’clock in the morning but does not do wudoo’, then he does wudoo’ at twelve o’clock, then the period for wiping over them starts at twelve o’clock, and lasts for one day and one night, or twenty-four hours. 

Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: al-Awzaa’i and Abu Thawr said: The time starts from when he wipes over them after breaking wudoo’. This was narrated from Ahmad and Dawood, and is the view which is most likely to be correct, based on the evidence. It was also the view favoured by Ibn al-Mundhir, and something similar was narrated from ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him). 

End quote from al-Majmoo’, 1/512 

This is what was regarded as more likely to be correct by Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him), who said: Because the ahaadeeth say “the one who is not travelling may wipe” and “the traveller may wipe”, and he only comes under the heading of one who wipes after he wipes for the first time. This is the correct view. 

Al-Sharh al-Mumti’, 1/186 

Thirdly: 

A number of scholars, including Ibn Hazm and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, are of the view that the state of purity does not end when the period for wiping over the socks or leather slippers ends, because there is no evidence to suggest that. Rather the state of purity comes to an end when it is invalidated by one of the things that are known to invalidate it, such as passing wind. 

Al-Muhalla, 2/151; al-Ikhtiyaaraat al-Fiqhiyyah, p. 15; al-Sharh al-Mumti’, 1/216. 

Based on this, if a person is in a state of purity and the time for wiping over the socks ends before Zuhr, he may pray Zuhr and subsequent prayers with that previous state of purity, until he breaks his wudoo’. 

Based on the above: 

If the period for wiping over the socks ended and you were not in a state of purity, then you have to repeat all the prayers that you offered after the time for wiping over the socks ended and you did not wash your feet. 

If the time for wiping over the socks ended and you were in a state of purity, then you only have to repeat the prayers from the time when you first broke your wudoo’ after that time ended. 

The worshipper’s body and clothes should be clean, so that the angels will not be offended by him and neither will his fellow-worshippers. 

Hence we are strongly urged to do ghusl, use the siwaak and put on perfume on Fridays, because people are crowded together. Similarly the Muslim who has eaten onions, garlic or anything else with an unpleasant odour is forbidden to attend the mosque, lest he annoy anyone with his smell. 

Ahmad (16445) narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “It is the duty of every Muslim to do ghusl on Friday, and to use the siwaak and put on perfume, if his family has any.” This hadeeth was classed as saheeh by Shu’ayb al-Arna’oot in his commentary on al-Musnad. 

Muslim (564) narrated from Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allaah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever eats onions, garlic or leeks, let him not approach our mosque, for the angels are annoyed by the same things that annoy the sons of Adam.” 

If the socks have an offensive odour, then he should certainly take them off and wash his feet. It is not permissible for him to annoy the angels and other worshippers with their smell. If he enters the mosque like that, he should be told to leave. 

Muslim (567) also narrated that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “O people, you eat two plants which I think are nothing but bad: this onion and garlic. I saw the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), if he noticed their smell on a man in the mosque, ordering that he be taken out to al-Baqee’. Whoever eats them, let him cook them to death.” 

Al-Nawawi said: 

It is better and is more on the safe side for the person doing wudoo’ not to put on his socks until he has washed his left foot, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When one of you does wudoo’ and puts on his khuffayn, he may wipe over them and pray in them, and he need not take them off if he does not want to, except in the case of janaabah.” Narrated from Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) by al-Daaraqutni and by al-Haakim who classed it as saheeh. 

It was narrated from Abu Bakrah al-Thaqafi (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) granted a dispensation to the traveller for three days and three nights, and to the non-traveller for one day and one night: if he purifies himself and puts on his khuffayn (leather slippers or socks), he may wipe over them. Narrated by al-Daaraqutni and classed as saheeh by Ibn Khuzaymah. 

It is narrated in al-Saheehayn from al-Mugheerah ibn Shu’bah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that he saw the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) doing wudoo’ and he wanted to take off his khuffayn. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to him: “Leave them, for I put them on when they (my feet) were in a state of purity.” 

The apparent meaning of these three ahaadeeth and similar reports is that it is not permissible for a Muslim to wipe over his khuffayn except when he put them on in a state of full purity. The one who puts his khuff or sock onto his right foot before washing his left foot is not in a state of full purity. 

Some scholars are of the view that it is permissible to wipe over the sock even if the person put his right foot into the khuff or sock before washing his left foot, because in each case it is done after washing the foot. 

But the first view is more on the safe side, and it is more apparent based on the evidence. So the person who has done that should take off the khuff or sock from his right foot before wiping, and put the sock back on after washing the left foot, so that he avoids an area of scholarly dispute and will be on the safe side with regard to his religious commitment. End quote. 

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him). 

Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn Baaz, 10/116 

Another indication that it is not permissible to wipe over the khuffayn unless one put them on when in a state of full purity is the report narrated by Ibn Khuzaymah and al-Daaraqutni from Abu Bakrah (may Allaah be pleased with him), according to which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) granted a concession to the traveller for three days and nights, and to the non-traveller for one day and night, allowing them to wipe over the khuffayn if they put them on after purifying themselves. Classed as saheeh by al-Khattaabi. Al-Bayhaqi narrated that al-Shaafa’i classed it as saheeh and al-Nawawi classed it as hasan. Talkhees al-Habeer, 1/278.