The correct view is that they need not be combined, because those who hold that dry ablution is obligatory do not hold that wiping is obligatory, and those who hold that wiping is obligatory do not hold that dry ablution is obligatory. Thus, the view that both must be combined falls outside the two views.

Moreover, requiring two purifications for a single limb runs contrary to the principles of the Sacred Law. We say that this limb must be purified either by this means or by that; but requiring it to be purified by two forms of purification has no parallel in the Sacred Law. Allah does not obligate a servant to perform two acts of worship for one and the same cause.

The scholars—may Allah Most High have mercy on them—said: A wound and the like are either uncovered or covered.

If it is uncovered, it must be washed with water. If that is not possible, then it should be wiped; and if wiping is not possible, then dry ablution is performed. This sequence must be followed.

If it is covered with something with which it is permissible to cover it, then only wiping is required. If wiping would harm it despite its being covered, one resorts to dry ablution, just as in the case where it is uncovered. This is what the jurists mentioned regarding this issue.

Until it is removed, ...

His statement, “until it is removed,” with the letter ha pronounced with a fatḥah, means its removal. Pronouncing the ha with a kasrah is a gross grammatical error that changes the meaning, for with a kasrah it would mean, “until it becomes lawful,” which corrupts the meaning. One wipes over the splint until it is removed, either because what lies beneath it has healed or for some other reason.

Once the wound has healed, it must be removed, because the reason for which applying the splint and wiping over it were permitted has ceased; and when the cause ceases, its consequence ceases