One of the topics on this subject relates to mash over boots (khuffayn)y as it is related to one of the acts of ablution (namely, washing of the feet). The discussion covering its principles relates to the study of seven issues: its permissibility; delineation of the object of mash; category of the object; its description, that is, the description of its object; its time; conditions; and factors nullifying it.

There are three opinions about this. The widely known opinion, which was upheld by the majority of the jurists of the provinces, is that it is permitted absolutely. The second opinion permits it during a journey and not within settlements. The third opinion maintains its absolute prohibition, and is the most strict. All three opinions have been related from the first generation (of Islam) and also from Malik.

The reason for their disagreement is the conflict thought to exist between the verse of ablution, commanding the washing of feet, with the traditions that permitted wiping, bearing in mind the fact that the verse itself was revealed later. This disagreement is to be found among the Companions in the first generation of Islam. Some of them maintained that the verse of ablution had abrogated these traditions, which is Ibn cAbbas’s opinion. Those who upheld its permissibility argued on the basis of the report by Muslim that the tradition of Jarir appealed to them, as it is related from him that he had seen the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) wiping his boots. It was said to him that this was prior to the revelation of surat al-M&ida> but he said, “I- converted to Islam after the revelation of al-M&ida”. The later jurists, who upheld its permissibility, said that there is no conflict between the verse and the traditions, as the command for washing feet is directed toward those who do not have boots, and the exemption has been granted to one wearing them. It is said that the interpretation of the verse based on the khafd version relates to wiping over boots. Those who made a distinction between travelling and being in a settlement, did so because most of the authentic traditions, conveying mash by the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) over his boots, relate to travel. Further, journey in itself depicts exemption and leniency. And, mash belongs to the category of leniency, as taking them off presents a hardship for the traveller.

The jurists of the regions disagreed about the delineation of the area (to be Wiped). One group of jurists said that the obligation is for wiping the upper P rt a of the boots, and that wiping the lower part, that is, the sole, is commendable. Malik is one of those who upheld this, as is al-Shafi I. Some of c them deemed obligatory the wiping of the external and the internal parts of the hoots, which is Ibn Nafic’s opinion, from among the disciples of Malik, while others deemed obligatory the wiping of the external part alone, and did not consider commendable the wiping of the inner part, which is the opinion of Abu Hamfa, Dawud, Sufyan (al-Thawri), and a group of jurists. Ashhab deviated from this and said that the obligation is for wiping the inner part or the external, whichever he (chooses) to wipe.40

The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of the traditions relevant to the subject, and the resemblance of wiping with washing. There exist two opposing traditions. The first is the tradition of al-Mughlra ibn ShuQ^a, which says, “He (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) wiped over his boots and inside them”. The other is the tradition of CA1T, saying, “Had the din been structured upon opinions, the wiping of the lower part of the boots would have been better than wiping the upper part, but I have seen the Messenger of Allah wiping the external part of his boots”. Those who adopted an opinion based on the reconciliation of traditions interpreted the tradition of al-MughTra to imply recommendation, and interpreted the tradition of CA1T to imply obligation. This is the preferable method. Those who adopted preference, either adopted cAlFs tradition or that of al-MughTra. Those who gave predominance to al-MughTra’s tradition over cAlFs did so on the basis of analogy, that is, the analogy of mash upon washing, while those who gave predominance to AIFs c tradition did so because of its opposition to analogy or on the basis of a*more reliable chain of transmission. Prominence in this issue goes to Malik. I have no knowledge of the basis for those who permitted mash of the inner part alone, for they neither followed these traditions nor employed this analogy, that is, the analogy of wiping upon washing.

About the kinds of objects that are to be wiped, the jurists upholding mash agreed upon wiping over boots, but they disagreed about socks (jawrabayri). One group of jurists permitted this, while another prohibited it. Among those who prohibited this are Malik, Al-Shafi T, c and Abu HanTfa. Those who permitted it include Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, the disciples of Abu HanTfa, and Sufyan al-Thawri.

The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute over the authenticity of a tradition from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) on this issue, which conveys that he wiped his socks as well as his sandals (na^layn). They also disputed as to whether analogy for other things can be constructed upon the wiping over boots, or whether it is a fixed ritual or non-rational interpretation upon which no analogy can be based nor can it be extended to other things. Those for whom the tradition did not prove authentic, or (information about) it did not reach them, and they did. not employ analogy upon boots, restricted mash to the boots, while those who considered the tradition to be authentic, or upheld analogy upon boots, permitted mash over socks. This tradition has not been recorded by the two Shaykhs, that is, al-Bukhari and Muslim, but has been deemed authentic by al- TirmidhT. Because of the vacillation of leather socks between boots and non­ leather socks, there are two narrations from Malik about wiping them: one prohibits it, while the other permits it.

They agreed about wiping over boots that are in good condition, and disagreed about those that are torn. Malik and his disciples said that one may wipe over them if the tear is minor. Abu Harnfa limited the extent of the tear to the measure of three fingers. A group of jurists said that it is permitted to wipe over them as long as they can be described as boots, even when the tear is extensive. One such jurist from whom this is related is al-Thawri. Al-ShafiT, in one of his two opinions, held that the boot should not be torn from the front exposing the foot, even if the tear is small.

The reason for their disagreement derives from the question of whether the transference of the obligation, from washing (the feet) to wiping, is due to their being covered, that is, the feet being covered by the boots, or whether it is due to the hardship arising from taking off the boots and then wearing them after washing.41 Those who said that it is due to covering did not allow wiping over torn boots, as the uncovering of the feet transfers the obligation from wiping to washing. Those who considered the underlying cause i^lla) to be hardship did not take into consideration the tear, when they could (still) he called boots. The distinction between a major and a minor tear42 is based on istihsan and the removal of hardship. Al-Thawri said that the boots of the Muhajirun and the Ansar were not devoid of tears, like the boots of other people, and had there been a prohibition in this regard it would have been laid down and related from them. I would say that this issue is one that is not expressed (in the texts), and had a hukm existed for it, along with the fact that tears in boots were common, the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) would have explained it. Allah, the Exalted, has said, “We have revealed unto thee the Remembrance that thou mayst explain to mankind that which hath been ^vealed for them”

The jurists also disagreed about (the extent of) its time. Malik held that it is n °t limited by time, and one wearing boots may wipe over them, as long as he does not take them off or is not affected by a* major impurity fjanaba). Abu Harnfa and al-Shafiri held that it is limited by time.

The reason for their disagreement is based upon the conflict of traditions about this. Three (relevant) traditions have been related. The first is a tradition of ‘AIT from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, “The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) determined three days and accompanying nights for a traveller and a night and a day for the resident.” It is recorded by Muslim. The second is the tradition of Ubayy ibn TJmara that he said, “O Messenger of Allah, do I wipe over my boots?” He said, “Yes”. He said, “For a day?” He said, “Yes”. He asked (again): “Two days?” He said, “Yes”. He said, “And a third?” He said, “Yes, till you reach the seventh”. He [the Prophet] then added, “Wipe for as long as you wish”. This is recorded by Abu Dawud and al-TahawT. The third is the tradition of Safwan ibn ‘Assal, who said, “We were on a journey and were ordered not to take off our boots for three days and accompanying nights, except in the case of a major impurity, but not for urinating, sleep, or when answering the call of nature”.

I would say that the tradition of CAIT is authentic, as it is recorded by Muslim. About the tradition of Ubayy ibn HLTmara, Abu ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd ai- Barr has said that it is not established, and does not have a verified chain of narration, therefore, it cannot be used to oppose the tradition from CA1T. Though the tradition of Safwan ibn cAssal has not been recorded by al- Bukhari or by Muslim, yet it has been considered sound by' experts in traditions, like al-TirmidhT and Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm. Like ‘Alt’s tradition, it conflicts in its apparent meaning with Ubayy’s tradition. It is possible to reconcile the two by saying that the traditions of ‘AIT and Safwan place a time limit in response to the question, while the tradition of Ubayy ibn ‘Umara is explicit about the negation of such a limit, but the tradition of Ubayy has not been authenticated. It is, therefore, necessary to act according to the traditions of ‘All and Safwan and that is better, although their implication conflicts with analogy: a time limit is not effective in annulling purity as factors that nullify it are impurities.

The condition for the wiping over boots is that the feet, at the time of wearing the boot, should be clean through the purification of ablution. This is something agreed upon, except for a slight disagreement, which is attributed by Ibn al-Qasim to Malik, as reported by Ibn Lubaba in al-Muntakhab. The basis for the majority view rests on the traditions related by al-Mughira and others, which state that when the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) wanted to take off his boots he said, “Let them be, for they (the feet) were clean when I put them on”. Those deviating from the majority view interpreted this remark according to the literal meaning of cleanliness.

The jurists differed in this topic about the person who (while performing ablution) washes his feet, puts on his boots, and then completes the ablution, whether he is entitled to wipe over his boots (next time he performs ablution). Those who did not consider an ordered sequence to be obligatory (in ablution) and held that purity of each limb is valid before the purity of all the other limbs is completed, maintained that it is permissible. Those who held that a sequence is obligatory, and that purification of a limb is not valid before purification of all the limbs (preceding it), did not permit it. The first opinion was held by Abu Harnfa, while the second was held by Malik and al-ShafiT, except that Malik did not disallow this because of the sequence; he did so as the purity of this limb cannot be achieved except by washing the remaining limbs. (This is on account of) the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “I put them on when they were clean”, meaning legal ceremonial purity. In some narrations from al-Mughira the words are: “When you slip your feet into your boots, and they were then pure, wipe over them”. On the basis of these rules the answer to the question about a person, who puts on one boot after washing his foot prior to washing the other, is provided by Malik, who said that he is not to wipe over his boots for he wore them before the completion of (ritual) purification. This is also the opinion of al-ShaficT, Ahmad, and Ishaq. Abu Harnfa, al-Thawri, al-MuzanT, al-Tabari, and Dawud said that wiping is permitted. It was also the opinion of a group of Malik’s disciples, among whom are Mutarrif and others. All of them agreed that if a person takes off one boot after washing the other foot and then puts it on, wiping is permitted to him.

Is it a condition for wiping over one boot that it should not be on a second boot (worn on top of the first soft boot)? There are two opinions about this from Malik. The reason for disagreement is whether the obligation of wiping the inner boot is transferred to the outer boot, just as the obligation of washing the foot is transferred to the boot when it covers the foot? Those who held the second transference similar to the first allowed wiping of the outer boot, while those who did not hold it to be similar and found a distinction did not permit it.

They agreed that the factors nullifying this form of purification are the same factors nullifying ablution itself. They disagreed on whether taking off the boots nullifies this kind of purification. A group of jurists said that if a person off his boots and washes his feet, purification is maintained, but if he does not wash them and prays, his prayer is not counted, and he has to pray again after washing his feet. Those who maintained this include Malik and his disciples, al-Shafi T, and Abu HanTfa. Malik, however, maintained that c if he delays this he has to renew ablution, conforming with the condition of continuous performance of the acts of ablution, which has preceded. Another group of jurists held that purity-is maintained and he is not obliged to wash his feet, unless the person acquires some form of hadath (legal impurity) that nullifies his ablution. Among those who maintained this are Dawud and Ibn AbT Layla. Al-Hasan ibn Hayy said that if he takes off his shoes, purity is annulled. Each of these three opinions was held by a group of the Tabi'-un. This issue has not been explicitly mentioned (in the texts).

The reason for disagreement is whether wiping over boots is an independent act in itself or is a'substitute for washing the feet once they are inside the boots. If we maintain that it is an independent act, purity must remain, even if he removes his boots, as in the case of a person whose feet are cut off after ablution. If we maintain that it is a substitute, it is possible to say that if he takes off his boots purification is annulled even if we stipulate immediate washing; and it is also possible to say that washing of the feet is enough to achieve purification, if we do not stipulate immediate washing. As to the stipulation of immediate washing at the time of removal of boots, it is weak, for it is something conjectural.

This is what we intended to establish in this chapter.