and those who came after them, together with the report we have transmitted from Ibn ʿUmar about wiping over a head-bandage.”

I say: You can see that al-Bayhaqī, in this chapter, relied on the statements of the jurists and on the narration from Ibn ʿUmar just mentioned. Had the ḥadith been sound through its various routes, al-Bayhaqī would surely have used it as proof, for he is among those who consider a report strengthened by multiple chains. Yet he refrained—despite his need for the ḥadith—because those chains are exceedingly weak, as we have shown.

For this reason Ibn Ḥazm held that wiping over a cast is not legislated. He said (2/74–75):

“The proof is Allah’s statement, ‘Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity’ [Q 2:286], and the Messenger of Allah’s words, ‘When I command you to do something, do of it as much as you are able.’ By the Qurʾān and the Sunnah, therefore, anything a person is incapable of is waived, and any substitute prescribed must itself be established by revelation. Revelation obligates only what is supported by the Qurʾān or the Sunnah, and neither of them prescribes substituting the washing one cannot perform with wiping over splints or medicine. Hence that opinion collapses.”

He then cited al-Shaʿbī in support, and the same view from Dāwūd and his followers—and this, Allah willing, is the truth.

As for the earlier report from Ibn ʿUmar, he replied that it was merely a personal practice of Ibn ʿUmar, not a directive making wiping obligatory. It is authentically reported that Ibn ʿUmar would let water reach the inner parts of his eyes during ablution and the ritual bath, yet such an act is not prescribed, much less compulsory!