the bone of the filth with which he has soiled it. Likewise, if someone possessed wine and was ordered to destroy it, then poured it out in the mosque, the intended purpose of destroying it would have been achieved. Yet he would have sinned by defiling the mosque and would therefore be ordered to purify it. By contrast, completing the three wipes with stones fulfils the command in full and achieves its intended purpose.

He was asked:

May one wipe over a leather sock if it has a small hole in it?

He answered:

There is a well-known disagreement concerning a leather sock with a small hole in it. Most jurists hold that wiping over it is permissible, as is the view of Abū Hanīfah and Mālik.

The second view is that it is not permissible, as is the well-known position of the schools of al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad. They argue that the exposed part of the foot must be washed, while the covered part must be wiped, and that one cannot combine a substitute with what it replaces.

The first view is stronger, for the concession is general, and the term “leather sock” encompasses both those with holes and those without. This is especially so since many of the Companions were poor and used to travel. Inevitably, then, some of their leather socks must have had holes in them. A traveller’s leather sock may become torn, and he may not