Explanation of the author's statement: "It stays on by itself."

The Shaykh : The fourth condition "It stays on by itself". "It stays on by itself" means that it does not slip off when you walk in it; in other words, it is not so loose that it falls off as you walk. For example, if a man has small feet and finds the largest leather sock that any human being wears, and he puts it on and says, "I will wipe over this sock," and the sock extends beyond the ankles and covers the required area, but he refuses to wear it because it is known that he cannot lift his foot; if he lifts his foot, it comes out of the sock, and he has to drag the sock along. Is this permissible or not? It is not valid. However, regarding the condition that it stays on by itself: if it does not stay on by itself, but stays on when you tighten it—meaning it stays on when tightened and does not stay on when left loose—is this permissible or not? Yes, even if it is by tightening. Likewise, if it does not stay on except with sandals, meaning it only stays on with sandals, is it permissible for me to wear the sandals over it and wipe over them along with the socks until I remove them? If I remove the sandals, wiping is no longer possible. So his statement "It stays on by itself" means that it should not be so loose that it slips off his foot if he walks in it. If it is so loose that it slips off his foot when he walks in it, then wiping over it is not valid. Now, do we say the same if it stays on by itself and not by tightening? Pay attention, we must be careful about this. He says that what is valid to wipe over when it is tightened is that it must cover the required area. If it does not cover the required area, but some of it is folded over some of it to cover it, he says there is no harm in that. As for this case, if it does not stay on except by tightening, they say that wiping over it is not valid. But if it stays on with sandals, then one wipes over it only until they are removed; if they are removed, wiping is not allowed. If it stays on by itself, let us repeat the condition a second time: it stays on by itself, or with sandals until they are removed. If it stays on by tightening, then according to the school of thought (madhhab), it is not permissible. That is, if a person has a small foot and wears a loose sock but ties it to his foot so that he can walk and it does not fall off, they say that wiping over it is not valid. But the correct view is that wiping over it is valid. Our evidence for this is that the texts regarding wiping over leather socks are general. As long as one can benefit from it and walk in it, what is the obstacle? A person might have only this loose sock. Do not measure things by our situation today. Thank Allah, today every person can get whatever he wants. But suppose this man has small feet and has only a sock belonging to his son, who has large feet. The father has large feet and has a loose sock, but the son has small feet and has only these socks. He says, "If I wear them and tighten them, I can walk; if I wear them and do not tighten them, they fall off my feet." He comes to ask for a ruling. What do we tell him? We say: according to the school of thought, it is not permissible; and according to the stronger opinion, it is permissible. The reason for its strength is that there is no evidence for this condition. If someone asks, "What is the evidence?" we say, "The evidence is the absence of evidence."