(2/132–133) and attributed it to al-Nasa’i, he did not give its wording! The commentator on Al-Ihsan likewise did so (4/163, al-Mu’assasah edition) with the hadith under discussion: he did no more than declare Fudayl ibn Sulayman weak and say, “Yet it is authentic through its corroborating reports!” By this he meant reports other than the hadith of Sa‘d that are authentically established from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, both in his practice and his words concerning wiping over leather socks. He ought to have cited it and investigated its sources more extensively, as was his usual practice, but the indexes did not assist him in doing so!

Know that the hadiths concerning wiping over leather socks are mass-transmitted, as more than one of the leading imams of hadith and Sunnah have explicitly stated. The reports showing that the Companions and the early generations acted upon them are exceedingly numerous and well known. As for what has been narrated from some of them of objections to this practice, that was before the relevant reports had reached them—as is the case with many juristic issues. Thus, once they reached them, they returned to affirming and practising it. This accords with the genitive-case recitation of His saying in the verse on minor ablution: “and [wipe] your feet up to the ankles.”

The fact that certain Islamic sects, such as the Rafidah, the Kharijites, and among them the Ibadis, persist in denying this Sunnah further confirms that they are followers of caprice, against whom Allah has warned: “Whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him, and follows a way other than that of the believers, We shall leave him to what he has chosen and cast him into Hell—what an evil destination!”

If anything should astonish you, it is that Shaykh ‘Abd Allah ibn Humayd al-Salimi, the Ibadi, should persist—as these people do—in opposing the Messenger and following a path other than that of the believers. To support this, he clings to the feeble reports, both in transmission and critical analysis, cited by their alleged imam, al-Rabi‘ ibn Habib, in the Musnad attributed to him! (1/35–36) Their chains all revolve around his teacher Abu ‘Ubaydah, an unknown narrator in his estimation, who is not even known among them as a transmitter distinguished by accuracy, retention, and precision. Then, in his commentary on it (1/177–179), he turns away from those authentic, mass-transmitted hadiths and the numerous, established, well-known reports, dismissing them out of partisanship for his Ibadi affiliation with a stroke of the pen, saying: