Those who prohibit this say: “If any part of the foot is exposed, wiping is not permissible.” Yet a tiny part of the foot may be visible through the stitching—as happens with much leather footwear. If they prohibit wiping over such footwear, they impose a restriction plainly contrary to the Sharia, without any evidence whatsoever.

If it is said that this exposed area cannot be washed, they cannot then say: “It must be washed.” If they say: “This is excused,” they have no consistent criterion for distinguishing what prevents wiping from what does not.

This becomes clearer when we examine their statement, “If any part of the foot is exposed.” If they mean visible to the eye, people’s eyesight varies in acuity, and they may see an area of the foot that cannot be washed. If they mean an exposed area that can be touched by hand, it may be possible to wash it without touching it.

If they say that they mean whatever can be washed, the possibility of washing varies: it may be possible only at the cost of injury. Even the area beneath a needle-hole can be washed if one puts the foot at the point of pressure and endures this until water enters the needle-hole. Even then, one may not be certain that the water has reached the skin without agitating the water or doing something similar. It cannot be washed as one normally washes the foot.

This argument is stronger still according to Ahmad’s position. He permits wiping over a turban worn in the customary manner, even if areas along the sides of the head remain exposed and could be wiped; wiping those areas is not obligatory. Is it permissible to wipe the forelock as well? There are two reported positions from him on this. Thus he did not