inside the leather sock, this is an even stronger case. Otherwise, what benefit is there in removing the leather sock and then putting it back on without doing anything beneficial? Is this not sheer pointlessness, which the Lawgiver is far above commanding?

If a man said to someone else, “Bring my property and my family into my house,” while some of his family and property were already inside, would that person be instructed to take them out and then bring them back in?

Joseph said to his family:

“Enter Egypt, Allah willing.”

Moses said:

“O my people, enter the Holy Land.”

And Allah Most High said:

“You will surely enter the Sacred Mosque, Allah willing, in safety.”

Suppose some of them had already been in Egypt, or some had already been in the Holy Land, or some of the Companions had entered the Sacred Precinct beforehand: would these people have been instructed to leave and then enter again?

If it is said, “This did not happen,” the answer is: Likewise, a man does not ordinarily wash his feet inside his leather socks. That is why there was no need to mention it—because, if he does so, he does not need to take his feet out and put them back in. This and similar cases warrant the same ruling all the more strongly.

Scholars have differed over whether cleansing oneself after relieving oneself with fewer than three stones, or with something prohibited, such as dung or decayed bone, or with the right hand, is sufficient. The correct view is that whoever uses fewer than three stones must complete what he has been commanded to do. As for someone who cleanses himself with a bone or with the right hand, that suffices, since the intended purpose has been achieved, even though he has sinned. Repeating the cleansing serves no purpose. However, he may be instructed to clean