It is in this light that the report of ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Āmir should be understood. When he travelled from Damascus to Medina to bring the people glad tidings of the conquest of Damascus, he wiped over his leather socks for a week without removing them. ‘Umar said to him, “You have acted in accordance with the Sunnah.” This report is authentic.

Leather socks are not, however, like splints in every respect: they are never wiped over in their entirety, they must be removed for full ritual bathing, and they must have been put on in a state of ritual purity. The point, however, is that when removing them is not possible, wiping over them is preferable to dry ablution. If we suppose that they cannot be removed even for full ritual bathing, they have then become like a splint and should be wiped over in their entirety, just as one would wipe over the whole of a splint on one’s foot.

Moreover, wiping over leather socks is preferable to dry ablution because it is purification with water applied to what covers the area that must be washed, whereas dry ablution involves wiping two other body parts with earth. This substitute is therefore closer to the original act than dry ablution is.

For this reason, if someone is wounded and can wipe his wounds with water but cannot wash them, should he wipe them with water or perform dry ablution? There are two views, both reported from Ahmad. Wiping them with water is the more correct view. For if wiping over a splint or leather socks is permissible and preferable to dry ablution, then wiping the affected body part itself with water is all the more preferable to dry ablution.

Fourth: a splint must be wiped over in its entirety, just as the skin must be washed in its entirety, because wiping the splint takes the place of washing the skin. This is all the more compelling according to the view of those who require wiping the entire head.