Wiping over torn and slit leather socks

The questioner:
And Shaykh Abu Malik said that Ibn Mubarak, or someone else in the chain, said: We wiped over them as long as they were intact with your permission. So the wiping by the Companions was only for intact or unperforated socks. Also, one wipes over them as long as they are intact.

The Shaykh:
Here, read the image.

The questioner:
And Abu Bakr, or someone else from the Salaf, said: Wipe over them as long as they are on your foot. So it was only the Companions, whether they were slit or patched. Also, one wipes over them as long as they are called khuff (leather socks).

The Shaykh:
Yes, this points to the issue of wiping over slit or torn leather socks or socks: is it permissible or not? The majority hold that it is not permissible, because what is exposed of the foot must be washed; permission was given to cover it, but if it is exposed or becomes exposed, the legal ruling is lifted. This is the apparent view. As for the possibility that the Companions’ leather socks were torn or slit, this requires proof. A mere possibility is not a basis for a legal ruling. A mere possibility is not a basis for a legal ruling. If it is reported that they wiped over leather socks that were slit or torn, we accept that. But as long as they say it is possible that they were slit or torn, we do not build a proof on a possibility, nor do we build a ruling on it.
The default state of a leather sock is soundness. If “leather sock” is mentioned in general, it refers to a sound leather sock. If it has tears, it must be specified; one says a slit leather sock or a torn leather sock. That is not the name for it. The default of general usage is soundness. If there is a defect, it is specified, and one says a slit leather sock or a torn leather sock, or something similar. If it is established by evidence that the Companions wiped over torn or slit leather socks, there is no objection to it. If you entrusted someone to buy you two leather socks and he brought you torn or slit ones, would you accept them? You would not accept them. You would say: You entrusted me, but I did not entrust you to buy them for me. I entrusted you to buy me sound ones. I came to you to buy two leather socks; how can you buy me slit or torn ones? The agency does not apply to this. This is an action by the agent in something other than what he was entrusted with. So the default is soundness until it is established for us that they wiped over torn or slit leather socks. Do you know that caution, taking the best option, and avoiding falling into disagreement are obligatory or recommended? Avoiding falling into disagreement means that a person does not lean toward opinions that are questionable. He leaves the stronger opinions and the cautious opinions regarding his religion and his worship.
But if we suppose that someone had a case of wiping and prayed, we do not tell him to repeat the prayer, because he acted based on one of the opinions of the scholars. If he knew this opinion and acted on it and prayed, we do not tell him to repeat the prayer. But before the prayer, we tell him: Take the most cautious option for your religion and stay away from places of doubt. Who said, peace and blessings be upon him, .
As for us spreading these differences and opinions among the people, causing confusion among the people and dispute among the students or the youth, this is not praiseworthy. It is not praiseworthy for the creed. The scholars have opinions, but not all opinions are spread except when there is a need and a necessity. As for spreading them without need and without necessity, this causes dispute among people. The scholars knew these opinions, and yet they did not spread them and did not issue fatwas based on them. They issued fatwas based on the most cautious option and the most secure option for their religion. This is the correct path. As for us writing letters or books and distributing them to people, or issuing fatwas and distributing them to people with these weaker opinions, this causes confusion for people. Yes.