with wiping in the same place, for the substitute act and the action it replaces cannot be combined in one area.

Imam Abū Ḥanīfah holds that wiping is impermissible if the tear in the khuff measures the width of three fingers or more.

Imam Mālik rules that one may not wipe if the damage is extensive and unsightly, leaving it to local custom to decide what counts as unsightly.

Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah declares it permissible to wipe over a torn khuff so long as it still deserves the name “khuff.” This is also the view of al-Thawrī, Isḥāq, Ibn al-Mundhir, and al-Awzāʿī.

Shaykh al-Islām adds that this opinion is the sounder one. It aligns with Imām Aḥmad’s legal principles and explicit statements that pardon minor exposure of the ʿawrah, slight impurity, and similar matters. The Sunnah legislates wiping over khuffs in unrestricted terms, and numerous sound reports affirm that the Prophet ﷺ wiped over his khuffs. The Companions learned this from him and transmitted the ruling in absolute language. It is also well known that many khuffs ordinarily contain splits or holes, and many Companions were poor and could not afford constant replacement.

Anyone who reflects on the Sharīʿah and grants analogy its due will realize that the concession in this matter is broad. It is among the beauties of the law and the easy, upright religion. The proofs that hardship has been lifted from this ummah are definitive. The Lawgiver’s purpose in legislating concessions is to show leniency in bearing difficulties; therefore, availing oneself of them without restriction accords with sound creed.

If, however, the footwear has deteriorated so completely that it can no longer be called a khuff, its function and very identity having disappeared, then wiping over it is invalid.