Ibn Majah

Commentary:
(1)
A learned person may sometimes be unaware of a particular issue; this does not diminish his status in any way. For this reason, the scholars often say:
(MAN HAFIZA HUJJATUN ‘ALA MAN LAM YAHFAZ)
Whoever has memorized (a matter or hadith) is a proof against the one who has not memorized it.

(2)
In cases of disagreement, one should seek the ruling on the issue from a scholar greater than oneself.

(3)
A scholar should explain the issue with evidence so that the questioner attains satisfaction, just as Umar radi Allahu anhu provided evidence that this action was performed in the presence of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and he did not prohibit it; therefore, it is permissible and correct.

(4)
If an action is performed in the presence of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and he does not prohibit it, then its permissibility is established. Such a hadith is called a tacit approval (taqreeri hadith). The silence of anyone other than the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam cannot serve as evidence, because it is possible that the person holds the action to be permissible or disliked, or there may be some other reason for his silence.

Explanation:
When Abdullah ibn Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) came to Kufa to visit Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (radi Allahu anhu), and saw him wiping over his leather socks (khuffayn), he inquired about the reason for this. Sa’d referred to the action of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), stating that he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) also used to wipe over them. When Abdullah ibn Umar asked Umar (radi Allahu anhu) about this issue and mentioned Sa’d’s reference, Umar replied that yes, Sa’d’s narration is indeed trustworthy. Whatever hadith he transmits from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is certainly authentic. There is no need to seek confirmation from anyone else.

Wiping over the leather socks (khuffayn) is narrated from approximately seventy Companions (Sahabah), and the notion that this has been abrogated by the verse in Surah al-Ma’idah is absolutely incorrect. This is because the narration of Mughirah ibn Shu’bah, which will be mentioned ahead, was stated on the occasion of the Battle of Tabuk, and Surah al-Ma’idah had already been revealed before that. Furthermore, another narrator, Jarir ibn Abdullah, embraced Islam after the revelation of Surah al-Ma’idah. In any case, wiping over the leather socks (khuffayn) is established by the consensus of all the Companions, and whoever denies it is outside the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah.

Hadith Commentary:
1.
The narration in Bukhari is concise.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah has written its details in these words: that Sa’d radi Allahu anhu was the governor of Kufa.
When Abdullah bin Umar radi Allahu anhu went to Kufa and saw Sa’d performing masah (wiping) over his leather socks (khuffayn), this matter unsettled him.
He objected to it.
Sa’d radi Allahu anhu said:
I do this act because I saw the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam performing masah.
Abdullah bin Umar radi Allahu anhu was not satisfied with this, so Sa’d radi Allahu anhu said that for further reassurance, you may ask your esteemed father, Umar radi Allahu anhu.
Then, in a gathering where all three were present, Sa’d radi Allahu anhu reminded Abdullah bin Umar radi Allahu anhu to ask about the issue, so the matter was raised, and Umar radi Allahu anhu said that Sa’d is absolutely correct.
After this, Umar radi Allahu anhu said: When Sa’d narrates a hadith to you, trust it; there is no need to ask anyone else.
(Fath al-Bari: 1/400)
Umar radi Allahu anhu said:
Once, we were with the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and we used to perform masah over the leather socks, and we did not see any harm in doing so.
Ibn Umar radi Allahu anhu said:
Even if a person comes after relieving himself, can he still perform masah? He replied:
Yes.
(Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah: 1/93)
2.
Ibn Umar radi Allahu anhu was among the earliest Muslims, yet despite this, he had a doubt regarding masah over the khuffayn.
The hadith scholars have mentioned two reasons for this:
(a)
Abdullah bin Umar radi Allahu anhu had seen the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam performing masah during travel, as this narration is present in the books of hadith.
(Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah: 1/206)
Therefore, it is possible that Ibn Umar radi Allahu anhu considered masah over the khuffayn to be specific to travel.
On this basis, when he saw Sa’d radi Allahu anhu performing masah while resident (not traveling), he objected.
(b)
It is possible that Ibn Umar radi Allahu anhu, like some other Companions radi Allahu anhum, thought that after the revelation of the verse of ablution (wudu) in Surah al-Ma’idah, performing masah over the khuffayn had been abrogated, as some Companions radi Allahu anhum had a similar doubt regarding Jarir radi Allahu anhu’s practice of masah, to which he replied: I accepted Islam after the revelation of Surah al-Ma’idah.
When Ibn Umar radi Allahu anhu came to know the reality of the matter, he retracted his previous position. Thus, al-Sha’bi says: I asked Ibn Umar radi Allahu anhu about masah, and he replied:
You should perform masah over the khuffayn.
(Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah: 1/207)
3.
At the end of the hadith, Imam Bukhari rahimahullah, in the manner of corroboration (mutaba’ah), has also mentioned a reconciliation, which al-Isma’ili has narrated with a chain in his Mustakhraj.
In this suspended narration (ta’liq), there are three Successors (Tabi’in) in succession: 1.
Musa bin Uqbah.
2.
Abu al-Nadr.
3.
Abu Salamah bin Abd al-Rahman.
It should be clear that this ta’liq is in the form of a narration by meaning (riwayah bil-ma’na), as Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has indicated by the word “nahwahu” (its like).
(Fath al-Bari: 1/400)