Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "On something pure and permissible."

The Shaykh : He said "on something pure". This is the first condition. It is required that what is worn be pure. The term "pure" is used for something pure in itself, and it is also used for something that is pure, meaning pure in itself. This excludes what is impure in itself. "Pure in itself" excludes what is impure in itself. The term "pure" can also be used for something that has not been touched by impurity, as if I said, "You must pray in a pure garment," meaning one that has not been touched by impurity. The intended meaning here is the first, namely pure in itself, which is the opposite of impure in itself. Do you understand? Because some leather socks are impure in themselves, such as a sock made from dog skin; this is impure in itself. And some are pure in themselves but contaminated, meaning touched by impurity, such as a sock made from the skin of a slaughtered camel, but impurity has touched it. The impurity of the first is impurity in itself, and the impurity of the second is impurity by ruling, not in itself. So, what is the intended meaning of the author's statement "on something pure"? The intended meaning of his statement "on something pure" is pure in itself, so this excludes what is impure in itself. Accordingly, it is permissible to wipe over a contaminated leather sock, but one does not become permitted to pray with it, because it is required in prayer to avoid impurity. One only becomes permitted to touch the mushaf, for example, to touch the mushaf, because it is not required in touching the mushaf that a person be purified from impurity, but only that he be purified from ritual impurity. This is one point. What do you think if a person makes a sock from the skin of carrion that has been tanned? If we say that tanning purifies it, then wiping over it is permissible. And if we say that it does not purify it, as is the position of the school of jurisprudence, then wiping over it is not permissible. Permissible. Now, what is the evidence for the condition of purity? Because wiping over what is impure in itself only increases its defilement. Indeed, if the hand touches this impurity while it is wet and moist, the hand becomes impure. And perhaps it can be inferred from the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) . But the meaning of the hadith is that he put them in, meaning the two feet, while they were pure, as some of the wordings explain. Permissible, to avoid what is forbidden. The forbidden is of two types: forbidden due to its acquisition, and forbidden in itself. Neither of them makes wiping valid. The forbidden due to its acquisition is like what is usurped or stolen; wiping over it is not permissible, as if someone took a person's sock by force; this is called usurpation, or if he stole it secretly, it is called theft, and wiping over it is not permissible. As for the forbidden in itself, it is like silk for a man. If a man made a sock from silk, that would be forbidden for him. And likewise, if he made one, wait until you agree with me, or not? If he made a sock with images in it, do we say that this falls under the category of what is degraded, or do we say that this falls under the category of clothing, and clothing with images in it is forbidden in all cases? So if there is an image of a lion or something similar on the sock, or if the sock is the emblem of one of the clubs and has an image of a football player in it, then wiping over it is not permissible, because wearing what has images in it is forbidden. Now, what is the evidence or the reasoning? As for the evidence, we do not know of a clear evidence for it. As for the reasoning, it is apparent, because wiping over leather socks is a dispensation, so it is not made permissible by sin. Wiping over leather socks is a dispensation from Allah and a facilitation, so how can this dispensation be made permissible by sinning against Allah? And because the statement that wiping over what is forbidden is permissible means, or implies, that this person is being approved in wearing what is forbidden, and what is forbidden must be forbidden. So the reasoning is thus composed of two things: the first is that wiping over leather socks is a dispensation, so sin is not made permissible by it; and the second is that the statement that wiping over a forbidden leather sock is permissible implies approving the wearer of the sin, and this is not possible. Indeed, the sin or the forbidden thing must be forbidden and removed immediately. And perhaps we can say, by analogy with the invalidity of the prayer of the one who lets his garment hang below the ankles, if the hadith about it is authentic, that the one who lets his garment hang below the ankles has his prayer invalidated because he wore a forbidden garment. So if the prayer is defective due to wearing a forbidden garment, then wiping is also invalid and defective due to wearing a forbidden leather sock. In all cases, it is required that the leather sock be permissible, and we said that its opposite is the forbidden, which is of two types: forbidden due to its acquisition, and forbidden in itself.