On the basis of the foregoing principles, the ruling is derived for the person who puts on one of his two leather socks after washing one foot but before washing the other. Mālik said, “He may not wipe over the two khuffs, for he donned a khuff before completing his state of purification.” This is also the position of al-Shāfiʿī, Aḥmad, and Isḥāq.

Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Thawrī, al-Muzanī, al-Ṭabarī, and Dāwūd held that wiping is permissible, and a number of Mālik’s own disciples agreed with them—among them Muṭarrif and others. All authorities concur, however, that were he to remove the first khuff after washing the second foot and then put it back on, wiping would be allowed. They further disagreed as to whether it is a condition for wiping that no other khuff be worn on top; two opinions are transmitted from Mālik on this point.

Cause of the disagreement: Is it the case that, just as the purification of the foot transfers to the khuff once the khuff covers it, the obligatory purification of the lower khuff likewise transfers to an upper khuff? Whoever likened the second transfer to the first permitted wiping over the upper khuff; whoever perceived a difference forbade it.

Issue Seven: The nullifiers of this purification. They agree unanimously that the same acts that invalidate wuḍūʾ invalidate this purification as well, but they differ over whether taking off the khuff itself breaks it.

One group said: “If he removes the khuff and then washes his feet, his purification remains valid; if he prays without washing them he must repeat the prayer after washing his feet.” This view is held by Mālik and his companions, al-Shāfiʿī, and Abū Ḥanīfah, though Mālik adds that if the washing is unduly delayed he must start the ablution afresh, because he considers continuous succession (muwālāt) obligatory.

A second group said: “His purification remains until he commits an act that nullifies wuḍūʾ; no washing is required.” This was the view of Dāwūd and Ibn Abī Laylā.

Al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥayy said: “When he removes his two khuffs his purification is void.” Each of these three views was held by some of the jurists among the Successors, and the matter is one on which the texts are silent.

Reason for their divergence: Does wiping over the khuffs constitute an original basis for purification, or is it merely a substitute for washing the feet when they are hidden within the khuffs? If it is an original basis, the purification continues even after the khuffs are taken off—just as the washing of the feet remains valid for one whose legs are cut off after ablution. If it is a substitute, two possibilities arise: (1) removing the khuff annuls the purification, even if immediacy is required; or (2) if he washes the feet the purification suffices, provided that immediacy is not stipulated.

As for requiring immediacy from the moment the khuff is removed, that is weak and little more than a conjecture. This is all we deemed necessary to record in this chapter.

[Chapter Three: Water]

Chapter Three
On Water

The foundation for the obligation to purify with water is the Almighty’s word:

“He sends down upon you water from the sky to purify you with it” (al-Anfāl 8:11),

and His word:

“But if you find no water, then perform dry ablution (tayammum) with clean earth” (al-Nisāʾ 4:43).

The scholars are unanimous that all kinds of water are, in themselves, pure and purifying, except for sea water, regarding which there was an anomalous difference of opinion in the earliest generation.