Wiping over the leather boot over the sock
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner:
If a man wears socks and then wears boots over them, and they are called boots, is it sufficient to wipe over the boots? And does the ruling differ if he put on the boots without being in a state of ritual purity, whereas he only put on the socks while in a state of ritual purity?
The Shaykh:
Yes, it is sufficient to put on the socks while in a state of ritual purity, and he may wear the leather socks (khuffayn). Then, if he wears the leather socks over the socks, if he started wiping over the socks, the ruling is tied to the socks, and he does not wipe over the leather socks, because he started wiping over the socks; he completes wiping over them up to the full extent of the ankle. But if he wore the leather sock before wiping, he wore the leather sock before wiping, then he has a choice: if he wishes, he wipes over the upper one, continues with it, and does not remove it; and if he wishes, he wipes over the lower one and removes the upper one whenever he wishes. This is easier for him; this is easier for him. But if he started wiping over the upper one, the ruling is tied to it, so if he removes it, it becomes invalid. Yes.
Another questioner:
The boots nowadays are generally such that they do not cover.
The Shaykh:
But underneath them are covering socks.
Another questioner:
We complete some of it.
The Shaykh:
Yes, indeed, it does not contradict. Yes, the jurists say: if he wears a leather sock over a leather sock before the state of ritual impurity, the ruling is for the upper one; but if he wears it after the state of ritual impurity, the ruling is for the lower one. Hmm?
Another questioner:
The same situation resulting from the socks.
The Shaykh:
He wipes over both, but he does not remove them if he started wiping over the boots; he does not remove them because the ruling is tied to them. But if he wipes over the socks, he may remove the boots; it does not contradict; the ruling is tied to the socks. Yes.
Another questioner:
This is Shaykh Muhyi on the radio.
The Shaykh:
The leather socks become like these, yes, exactly like the leather socks.
Another questioner:
The situation is one of choice, and wearing the boots.
The Shaykh:
He has the right to wipe over the boots, but he must continue with them; and he has the right to wipe over the socks and remove the boots.
The questioner:
So if the boots are not a covering.
The Shaykh:
It is sufficient that they cover what is underneath them; if what is underneath is a covering, that is sufficient. Yes.
If a man wears socks and then wears boots over them, and they are called boots, is it sufficient to wipe over the boots? And does the ruling differ if he put on the boots without being in a state of ritual purity, whereas he only put on the socks while in a state of ritual purity?
The Shaykh:
Yes, it is sufficient to put on the socks while in a state of ritual purity, and he may wear the leather socks (khuffayn). Then, if he wears the leather socks over the socks, if he started wiping over the socks, the ruling is tied to the socks, and he does not wipe over the leather socks, because he started wiping over the socks; he completes wiping over them up to the full extent of the ankle. But if he wore the leather sock before wiping, he wore the leather sock before wiping, then he has a choice: if he wishes, he wipes over the upper one, continues with it, and does not remove it; and if he wishes, he wipes over the lower one and removes the upper one whenever he wishes. This is easier for him; this is easier for him. But if he started wiping over the upper one, the ruling is tied to it, so if he removes it, it becomes invalid. Yes.
Another questioner:
The boots nowadays are generally such that they do not cover.
The Shaykh:
But underneath them are covering socks.
Another questioner:
We complete some of it.
The Shaykh:
Yes, indeed, it does not contradict. Yes, the jurists say: if he wears a leather sock over a leather sock before the state of ritual impurity, the ruling is for the upper one; but if he wears it after the state of ritual impurity, the ruling is for the lower one. Hmm?
Another questioner:
The same situation resulting from the socks.
The Shaykh:
He wipes over both, but he does not remove them if he started wiping over the boots; he does not remove them because the ruling is tied to them. But if he wipes over the socks, he may remove the boots; it does not contradict; the ruling is tied to the socks. Yes.
Another questioner:
This is Shaykh Muhyi on the radio.
The Shaykh:
The leather socks become like these, yes, exactly like the leather socks.
Another questioner:
The situation is one of choice, and wearing the boots.
The Shaykh:
He has the right to wipe over the boots, but he must continue with them; and he has the right to wipe over the socks and remove the boots.
The questioner:
So if the boots are not a covering.
The Shaykh:
It is sufficient that they cover what is underneath them; if what is underneath is a covering, that is sufficient. Yes.
Source
شرح بلوغ المرام من أدلة الأحكام [ صالح الفوزان ]، تتمة باب المسح على الخفين — islamhouse.com (1:00:17)
The Arabic text is a machine transcription of the audio recording.