Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "A cast that does not exceed the extent of the need, even in major ritual impurity."

The Shaykh : ...dry ablution and wiping are not required, because we say the limb is present, not missing, so its obligation is not dropped. However, if the hand is amputated, the obligation is dropped because the limb is now present but one is unable to purify with water, so one purifies with the body. Perhaps His saying, the Exalted, applies here, for this person is sick, and a fracture or wound is a type of sickness. But when we say that one must either perform dry ablution or wipe, which is closer to purification with water? Wiping, because it is purification with water, whereas that is purification with dust. Also, dry ablution may be in a place other than the cast, because dry ablution is on the hands and face only, and the cast may be on the forearm, the upper arm, the lower leg, the thigh, or the abdomen. Yes, it is possible. The closest of these three opinions is the permissibility of wiping over it. But does one combine wiping and dry ablution? Some scholars said yes, it is obligatory to combine wiping and dry ablution as a precaution. But the correct view is that it is not obligatory to combine them, because those who say dry ablution is obligatory do not say wiping is obligatory, and vice versa. And making two purifications obligatory for one limb is contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah. No, because we say it is obligatory to purify this limb either by this or by that. But making its purification obligatory by two purifications has no precedent in the Shari'ah, and Allah the Exalted does not burden a servant with two acts of worship whose cause is one. But with this, the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) said that a wound or the like is either exposed or covered. If it is exposed, it is obligatory to wash it with water. If that is not possible, then wipe the wound itself. If even wiping is not possible, then dry ablution. And in that case, the exposed wound or fracture has three states, meaning three levels: the first level is washing, the second level is wiping, the third level is dry ablution, in that order. But if it is covered with something that permits covering it with, then there is only wiping. Wiping may harm it, even if it is covered; perhaps wiping may harm it, so we resort to dry ablution as if it were exposed. This is what the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) mentioned in this issue. He (may Allah have mercy on him) says "even in major ritual impurity". "Even" here is not an indication of disagreement, but it is to remove the suspicion regarding what he said about the turban, the head covering, and the leather socks in minor ritual impurity. He intended to remove the suspicion about wiping over the cast: is it specific to minor ritual impurity, or even in major? So he said "even in major". The difference between major and minor ritual impurity: major is what obligates the full ritual bath, and minor is what obligates the ablution. This is the difference between them. Which is more severe? Major is more severe. Therefore, what is forbidden for one with major ritual impurity is not forbidden for one with minor ritual impurity, as will come, if Allah wills, in the section on the nullifiers of the ablution.