Explanation of the author's statement: "If one wears a leather sock over a leather sock before breaking ritual purity, the ruling applies to the upper one."

The Shaykh : Then the author moved on to a matter that occurs frequently. He said, "If one wears a leather sock over a leather sock before breaking ritual purity, the ruling applies to the upper one". This happens, and what happens is like wearing shoes or boots. This is a leather sock over a leather sock. First, we must investigate whether wiping over both is permissible before we know whether the wiping is on the upper one or the lower one. Is wiping over both permissible or not? If they are torn, wiping over them is not permissible according to the school of thought, even if they cover the feet, because if either one were alone, wiping over it would not be permissible, so wiping over both is not permissible. For example, wearing two shoes, one torn at the bottom and one torn at the top. Now, the covering is achieved, or is it not? It is achieved. But if each one were alone, wiping over it would not be permissible, so wiping over both is not permissible, neither on the upper one nor the lower one. That is correct. Now, if they are intact, if the two leather socks are intact, wiping over them is permissible, clear, because if either one were alone, wiping over it would be permissible. If one is intact and the other is torn, they say that wiping over both is permissible because the covering is achieved and if either one were alone, wiping over it would be permissible, so wiping over both is permissible in this case. So now, either they are torn, or they are intact, or the upper one is intact and the lower one is torn, or vice versa. Wiping is permissible in three cases: if they are intact, if the upper one is intact and the lower one is torn, or vice versa. In these three cases, wiping is permissible. If they are torn, wiping is not permissible. If they are torn, the correct view is that wiping over them is permissible absolutely, based on the fact that covering the place of the obligation is not a condition, as long as the name "leather sock" remains. Now, if one wears a leather sock over a leather sock, does the ruling apply to the upper one? If he wears it in a way that makes wiping permissible, does the ruling apply to the upper one or the lower one? There is a detailed explanation.

The questioner : To the Most High.

The Shaykh : No, there is a detailed explanation according to the school of thought. We will explain according to the school of thought, and then we will see. If it was before breaking ritual purity, the author says the ruling applies to the upper one. And if it was after breaking ritual purity, the ruling applies to the lower one. For example, this man wore a shoe, he wore the shoe, then he broke his ritual purity, then he wore another shoe. The ruling applies to the lower one, meaning he cannot wipe over the upper one. Now, if he wore the upper one after wiping over the lower one, the ruling applies to the lower one. The ruling applies to the lower one.

The questioner : Without breaking ritual purity, Shaykh?

The Shaykh : No, he broke his ritual purity. This man wore the shoe, then he broke his ritual purity and wiped over it, then at the end of the day, the cold became severe, so he wore another shoe over the upper one, but he wore it while in a state of ritual purity.

The questioner : Ritual purity from wiping.

The Shaykh : Yes, in a state of ritual purity from wiping. Does the ruling apply to the first one, the lower one, or to the upper one? The school of thought, as you see, says the ruling applies to the lower one because he wore it after breaking ritual purity. The ruling does not apply to the upper one unless he wore it before breaking ritual purity. Do you understand now? Some scholars said that if he wore the second one in a state of ritual purity, wiping over it is permissible. Wiping over it is permissible because it is true that he put his feet in it while in a state of ritual purity. If that is true, then the hadith and the companions (may Allah have mercy on them) stated that wiping over leather socks removes the state of ritual impurity, not like dry ablution, which is a permission according to their view. They say that wiping over leather socks removes the state of ritual impurity. So now, he wore the second leather sock in a complete state of ritual purity, so why did he not wipe? This view is very strong because its cause is apparent. But if he wore the second one while in a state of ritual impurity, he does not wipe because he wore it in a state other than ritual purity. Now, the last one: after he wiped over the first one, he broke his ritual purity, then he wore the second one while in a state of ritual impurity, so he does not wipe now because he wore it in a state other than ritual purity.

The questioner : Regarding the case where he wore it before breaking ritual purity, does the ruling apply to the upper one and not the lower one?

The Shaykh : The ruling applies to the upper one; he wipes over the upper one. But is it permissible to wipe over the lower one in this case? The answer is yes, it is permissible. The author only said the ruling applies to the upper one to clarify the permissibility of wiping over it. So the result now is that if one wears a leather sock over a leather sock, either it is after breaking ritual purity or before breaking ritual purity. After breaking ritual purity, from the moment he wore it, meaning, or after breaking ritual purity. If it was after breaking ritual purity, wiping is restricted to the lower one, which is the first one, and it is not permissible to wipe over the upper one under any circumstances, whether he wore it in a state of ritual purity or not. This is the school of thought. And if it was before breaking ritual purity, the ruling applies to the upper one, and wiping over the lower one is permissible because that is the original state. Do you understand now? Now, we are left with the case where he wipes over the upper one. If he takes it off after wiping over it, does he wipe over what is underneath? For example, a man wore two shoes and was wiping over the upper one. During the day, it became hot, meaning it became hot, do you know or not? It is known. Now, he said, "I will take off the upper one," so he took it off. Is he allowed to wipe over the lower one or not? The school of thought says no. And this is a benefit of our statement that the ruling applies to the upper one. They say if he wiped over the upper one, that is it, the ruling attached to it. If he takes it off after wiping over it, it does not suffice for him to wipe over what is underneath. This is the school of thought. The second view says it is permissible, considering the two leather socks to be like the outer layer and the inner layer. What does the outer layer and inner layer mean? This is new language. If he has a leather sock, meaning made of two layers, the upper one is called the outer layer and the second, inner one is the inner layer. This leather sock has two sides. Let us suppose that after wiping over it, the upper side, which is the outer layer, tore. Does he wipe over the inner layer? Yes, he wipes over it, even according to the school of thought.