Explanation of the author's statement: "And one does not wipe over caps, wrappings, or what falls off the foot, or of which a part is visible."

The Shaykh : He said, "And one does not wipe over caps, wrappings, or what falls off the foot".

The questioner : With us, "and wrappings".

The Shaykh : What contradicts "wrappings or what falls off the foot, or of which a part is visible" is that one does not wipe over caps. What are these caps? These caps are a type of headwear placed on the head; they are a large cap that a person wears. We can bring it to mind by comparing it to a hat; do you know a hat?

The questioner : It is well known.

The Shaykh : It is well known. A hat is something worn on the head, made of wool, and open for the face.

The questioner : A tarboosh, this.

The Shaykh : It is called a tarboosh.

The questioner : It is called a qahfiah.

The Shaykh : And a qahfiah, yes. The important point is what is worn on the head. The author says that one does not wipe over the cap. Why? Because the original ruling is the obligation to wipe the head. The original ruling was departed from in the case of the turban because a text came regarding it. So, what remains besides that stays on the original ruling, which is the obligation to wipe the head. This is because Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says in the Qur'an: Therefore, a barrier prevents us from wiping the head. The turban is excepted because a text came regarding it. Accordingly, the cap is not wiped over; the person removes it from his head and wipes. Some of our companions (may Allah have mercy on them) said that one wipes over the cap, and there is no harm if it is like the turban in that it is difficult to remove. In that case, it is wiped over. As for what is not difficult to remove, like the cap we know, or the ghutrah, it is not wiped over. So, there is a difference between a thing that is difficult to remove and requires some effort to take off and put back. That is what is wiped over. The Lawgiver does not differentiate between two similar things, nor does He combine two different things, because the Shari'ah comes from the Wise, the All-Aware (Exalted and Majestic is He). The criterion in matters is by their meanings, not their forms. So, the criterion is by the meanings. As long as the Lawgiver permitted wiping over the turban, then what is like it in the difficulty of removal is given its ruling. As for his statement, "and wrappings", the wrapping is on the foot, meaning that a person does not wipe over a wrapping he has tied around his foot, because it is not a leather sock, so its ruling does not cover it. Do you understand? It is not a leather sock. If it is not a leather sock, its ruling does not cover it. Can anyone wrap something around their leg? Yes, in a past time when people were in poverty and destitution and could not find a leather sock, a person would take rags, tie them, wrap them around his leg, and bind them, because they had nothing. For such people, wiping is not permissible. The reason is that the original ruling is the obligation to wash the foot. This original ruling was departed from for the wearer of the leather sock because a text came regarding it. So, what remains besides that stays on the original ruling. The reason for this, or the presentation of the evidence in this manner, can be refuted as we refuted it for the turban. For this reason, the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) chose that it is permissible to wipe over the wrapping. He said that the owner of the wrapping is more excused than the owner of the leather sock. Which is easier: to remove the leather sock, wash your foot, and put the leather sock back on, or to untie this wrapping and then put it back again? The leather sock is easier, isn't it? If the Shari'ah has permitted wiping over the leather sock, then the wrapping is all the more so. Also, the secret mission for which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sent them and ordered them to wipe over the headbands and the warmers, we can take from the word "warmers" the permissibility of wiping over the wrapping, because it warms the foot. The purpose for which leather socks are worn exists in the one who wears the wrapping. The correct view is what the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) held in this matter. He said, "and what falls off the foot", meaning that one does not wipe over what falls off the foot. This is based on what was mentioned previously, that it is a condition that it be fixed by itself or by two straps until they are removed. What falls off the foot is not permissible to wipe over. Why? Because it is an unusual leather sock, so the text does not cover it. People are confused; they wear leather socks, and this is the end of it. A person puts his leg in to walk, and the leather sock falls off, doesn't it? No one wants to wear this leather sock. No one is wearing it. What is the benefit if my leg slips out, the leather sock falls off, and then when I step, I pick it up and put it on the second time? And if I want to take the second step, this one falls off. It is not possible except for a person, as the brother indicated, who wants to drag his legs. In that case, it might not fall off. So, they say that as long as it is an unusual leather sock, it is not permissible to wipe over it. In reality, for one who walks, there is no doubt that no one wears it. But if we suppose that a man does not walk, a sick person who is bedridden, and he puts his leg in this leather sock to keep it warm, is wiping permissible or not? According to the author's statement, it is not permissible, because what falls off the foot will also be loose, and removing this leg from this leather sock is easy and simple. He takes it out, washes it, dries it, and puts it back in. "and of which a part is visible", meaning that one does not wipe over that of which a part is visible. How? If a part of the foot is visible from the leather sock, it is not wiped over, even if the part is small. Yes, and this is based on what was mentioned previously regarding the condition that the leather sock must cover the prescribed area. If a part of the foot is visible, it is not wiped over, whether it is visible through a barrier or without a barrier. How is it visible through a barrier? For example, if it is thin or made of glass. Suppose this leather sock has, for instance, a piece of glass the size of an eye, and you can see the foot through it, but it is a barrier.

The questioner : On the foot.

The Shaykh : On the foot. In the leather sock, there is something the size of an eye made of glass. The foot is visible through it, but it is a barrier, or not a barrier? It is a barrier. So, according to the madhhab, it is not permissible to wipe over it. We have previously discussed the disagreement in this issue, and that the correct view is the permissibility of it due to the generality of the text.