Bismillahi Al-Rahmani Al-Rahim

 More About Wiping Over Socks Revisited
Question:
 assalamu 'alaykum Sidi,

Could you please comment on the article at:

http://www.geocities.com/~abdulwahid//muslimarticles/socks.html

 Specifically, the following paragraph:

-----------------------------------------
The main position of the Hanbali school is the same as the dispensation given in the Hanafi school, with emphasis on but two points: the jawarib must be thick, and they must be sufficiently resistant to wear and tear while walking in them. This is stated plainly by Ibn Qudama in al-Mughni (1994 ed. 1:220): "Imam Ahmad  said: Wiping over the soft non-leather shoe is impermissible unless it is thick-textured (jawrabansafiqan) and stands alone on one's leg without collapsing, just like the khuff, and the people used to wipe on the jawrabayn only because, in their usage, it provided the same  function as the khuff and stood up on the leg like the khuff, allowing one to come and go with it."
---------------------------------------
jazakumullah khayr

wassalamu 'alaykum

[...]
Answer:

 wa `alaykum al-salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

Briefly:

The article is well written and decently researched. May Allah reward the author for his effots. It does not seem to have been written by someone who has studied the Hanbali mathab from Hanbalis. The Mughni is not where you go to know the strongest rulings in the late Hanbali mathab; it's an excellent source for Ibn Qudama's rulings and is one of the most authoritative books for knowing the way the various positions and their opinions are argued, but in and of itself it is not sufficient when saying what the ruling in the Hanbali mathab is. The author should have referred to a later book in order to know the fatwa of the late scholars and then used the Mughni to argue it. Had he done this, he would have had a better understanding of how the Hanbalis themselves understand the Mughni.

The paragraph in question has been taken a bit out of context. Ibn Qudama mentions this paragraph in a discussion on whether or not jawrab with patches can be wiped over. He said that perhaps Imam Ahmad disliked wiping over them because they tend to be thin and to fall down.

The statement that "the jawarib must be thick, and they must be sufficiently resistant to wear and tear while walking in them" is a bit off. The reason the Hanbalis want thickness doesn't have to do with wear and tear, rather it has to do with rendering he color of the underlying skin and hair indiscernible. Perhaps  the phrase "the people used to wipe on the jawrabayn only because, in their usage, it provided the same function as the khuff" threw him off, since the purpose of khuff according to the Hanbalis is to keep the foot warm, not to walk around the campsite.

The phrase "allowing one to come and go with it" does not specify any minimal distance. Hanbali books typically say that the khuff or another barrier worn in its place should be such that one can walk in it. They never say how far, just that it is possible to walk in them.

These are things that would have been known if the author had read the Hanbali mathab as a complete and systematic mathab, not just grazing from here and there. But these problems are inherent to the fiqh muqarin approach.

In general: the article you lined to is a bit better than average. May Allah reward him for his efforts. My provisional opinion is that words like khuff shouldn't be translated, since English really doesn't have the same thing. The translators of Sahih Al-Bukhari did an identical or similarly bad of a job of translating the terms khuff and jawrab.  And finally: polemics, whether against the Shi`a or the Salafis, destroy the heart.

wa al-salamu `alaykum
--Musa