stipulate that the item wiped over must cover the entire area subject to the obligation. According to one of the two reported positions, he required combining the original obligation with its substitute. Al-Shāfiʿī also recommends doing so, as does Ahmad according to the other reported position.

It is therefore clear that what matters is that the covering be worn in the customary manner, whether or not it covers the entire area subject to the obligation. Leather footwear is customarily worn with split seams and holes, leaving part of the foot exposed. Footwear that falls below the ankles, however, does not qualify as such footwear at all. Hence, according to the stronger of the scholars’ two views, a pilgrim in the consecrated state may wear it even when sandals are available. We shall discuss this, Allah Most High willing, and explain that the command to cut down the footwear was abrogated, and that he only commanded this when the substitute had not yet been prescribed either.

The second premise of their argument—namely, their statement, “The original obligation and its substitute can be combined”—is rejected according to the principles of al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad. Both hold that dry ablution and washing are combined when some parts of the body can be washed but others cannot, because the remaining parts are wounded or because there is too little water. Likewise, wiping part of the head is combined with wiping over the turban, as the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did in the year of Tabūk.

If it were supposed that Allah Most High had made wiping over leather footwear obligatory, just as He made washing the entire body obligatory, it would be possible to wash what is exposed and wipe over what is covered. Something similar is done with a splint: when one binds it over part of an area, one wipes over the splint and washes or wipes the spaces between them, thereby combining washing and wiping on a single limb. Thus it becomes clear that exemption from washing the exposed portion