Wiping Over Torn Leather Socks

The disagreement

• Scholars agreed on the permissibility of wiping over sound/intact leather socks
• They disagreed on the permissibility of wiping over torn leather socks (الخف المخرق) based on three opinions.

The opinions

• Wiping is allowed if the tear is small, but not if it is large:

Held by: Abū Ḥanīfah and Mālik.

• Wiping is allowed as long as it is still called a "sock, " even if the tear is large:

al-Thawrī.

• Wiping is allowed as long as it covers the area of the obligatory washing; it is not allowed if any part of the foot is visible, even if small:

al-Shāfiʿī and Aḥmad.

Reason for the disagreement

Does the transition of the obligation from washing to wiping occur because the sock covers the feet, or because removing the sock causes hardship?

Evidence

First opinion

• Distinction between large and small tears: This is based on legal preference (الاستحسان) and the removal of hardship

Second opinion

• The reason for wiping is the difficulty of removal. Therefore, a tear is not considered as long as the item is still called a "sock"
• The leather socks of the al-Muhajirun and al-Ansar were torn and patched, yet it was not reported that they stopped wiping over them.

Third opinion

• The underlying reason is covering the foot: If the foot is exposed, wiping over the sock is no longer valid because the obligation for the exposed part of the foot reverts to washing

References

Bidāyat al-Mujtahid (1/43), al-Hidāyah (1/153), Badā’iʿ al-Ṣanā’iʿ (1/144), al-Tafri' (1/199), al-Fawakih al-Dawani (1/253), Nihayat al-Matlab (1/294), al-Bayan (1/154), al-Sharh al-Kabir (1/410), al-Mughni (1/375), Sharh Ibn Zāḥim (1/130).