The correct view, however, is that it is valid. The evidence for this is that the texts concerning wiping over leather socks are unrestricted. So long as one benefits from them and can walk in them, what is there to prevent it? There is no evidence for prohibition.

A person may have no option but this oversized leather sock, and preventing him from wiping over it would cause hardship. Today, however—all praise be to Allah—everyone can find whatever he wants . . .

But suppose this man has a small foot and possesses no leather sock except this large, oversized one. He says: “If I wear it and tie it tightly, I can walk in it; but if I do not tie it, it falls off my foot.” What do we say to him?

We say: according to the school, it is not permissible; according to the stronger view, it is permissible. The reason this view is stronger is that there is no evidence for this condition.

If someone asks: “What is the evidence that it is permissible to wipe over it?”

We say: the evidence is the absence of evidence—that is, the absence of any proof stipulating that it must remain in place by itself.

“Of a leather sock . . .”

His statement, “of a leather sock,” explains his statement, “pure.” The prepositional phrase clarifies “pure.” When the preposition min (of) is explanatory, the prepositional phrase functions as an accusative circumstantial qualifier; that is, being of a leather sock.

A leather sock is that which is made of leather. Socks are made of something other than leather, such as cloth and the like. Thus, it is permissible to wipe over both this and that.

The evidence for wiping over socks is analogy with leather socks, since there is no