These ḥadiths, then, show that wiping over sandals is likewise permissible, and reports from a number of the early generations confirm this—as will appear shortly. They therefore provide clear proof that it is not a prerequisite for the khuff (leather socks) to cover the entire area that must be washed in ablution, exactly as the author quoted from Shaykh al-Islām on p. 106.

He writes: “Wiping over leather socks becomes invalid through: 1) the lapse of the time limit, 2) major ritual impurity (janābah), 3) removing the khuff.”

I say: The evidence for the second point is the ḥadith of Safwān ibn ʿAssāl cited earlier in the section on the nullifiers of ablution under “deep sleep.” As for the first and third points, there is absolutely no proof for them. Hence Shaykh al-Islām states in al-Ikhtiyārāt, p. 9:

“The ablution of a person who has wiped over his khuff or turban is not invalidated by removing them, nor by the expiration of the prescribed period. He is not required to re-wipe his head or wash his feet. This is the view of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, and it parallels the ruling on cutting off hair that had been wiped over, which is the sound position in the Ḥanbalī school and the opinion of the majority.”

I add: What he related from al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī was recorded by al-Bukhārī in suspended form in his Ṣaḥīḥ, 1/225: “Al-Ḥasan said: If someone trims his hair or nails, or removes his leather socks, his ablution is not invalidated.”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ [Ibn Ḥajar] comments: “The muʿallaq report concerning the first issue has been supplied with a continuous chain by Saʿīd ibn Manṣūr and Ibn al-Mundhir, both with sound isnāds. The muʿallaq report on the second issue was linked by Ibn Abī Shaybah with a sound isnād as well. Ibrahim al-Nakhaʿī, Ṭāwūs, Qatādah, and ʿAṭāʾ agreed with this ruling, and it was likewise the legal verdict of Sulaymān ibn Ḥarb and Dāwūd.”