it resembles that which has no sharij.

Section: If the khuff is forbidden, such as those made of reed or silk, it is not permissible to wipe upon it according to the correct view of the school. If one wipes upon it and prays, he must repeat the purification and the prayer, because he is in disobedience by wearing it, so the concession is not made permissible through it, just as the traveler does not attain the concessions of travel through a journey of disobedience. If he travels for disobedience, he does not attain the concession of wiping for more than a day and a night, because a day and a night is not specific to travel, nor is it one of its concessions, so it resembles that which is not a concession. This is in contrast to that which exceeds a day and a night, for that is among the concessions of travel, so he does not attain it through a journey of disobedience, like shortening and joining prayers.

Section: It is permissible to wipe upon every covering khuff in which it is possible to continuously walk, whether it is made of leather, felt, or what resembles them. If it is made of wood, iron, or the like, some of our companions said: It is not permissible to wipe upon them, because the concession was granted for conventional khuffayn [leather socks] due to need, and the need for wiping upon these does not arise in most cases. The Qadi said: The analogy of the school is that it is permissible to wipe upon them, because it is a covering khuff in which it is possible to walk, so it resembles those made of leather.

85 - Issue: He said: (And likewise is the thick sock [jawrab] which does not fall down when one walks in it.)

Wiping upon the jawrab is only permissible under the two conditions we mentioned for the khuff: one of them is that it must be thick, such that no part of the foot is visible from it. The second is that it must be possible to continuously walk in it. This is the apparent meaning of the words of al-Khiraqi. Ahmad said regarding wiping on the two jawrabayn [socks] without sandals: If one walks in them and they remain stable on his feet, there is no harm. In one place he said: He wipes upon them if they are stable on the heel. In another place he said: If one walks in them and they do not fold, there is no harm in wiping upon them, for if they fold, the place of wudu becomes exposed. It is not required that they be lined with leather. Ahmad said: Wiping upon the jawrabayn is reported from seven or eight of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Ibn al-Mundhir said: The permissibility of wiping upon the jawrabayn is narrated from nine of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): Ali, Ammar, Ibn Mas'ud, Anas, Ibn Umar, al-Bara', Bilal, Ibn Abi Awfa, and Sahl ibn Sa'd. This is the position held by 'Ata', al-Hasan, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, al-Nakha'i, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, al-A'mash, al-Thawri, al-Hasan ibn Salih, Ibn al-Mubarak, Ishaq, Ya'qub, and Muhammad. Abu Hanifa, Malik, al-Awza'i, Mujahid, 'Amr ibn Dinar, al-Hasan ibn Muslim, and al-Shafi'i said: It is not permissible to wipe upon them unless they are soled, because it is not possible to continuously walk in them, so wiping upon them is not permissible, like thin ones. Our argument is what al-Mughira ibn Shu'ba narrated, that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) wiped upon his jawrabayn and sandals. Al-Tirmidhi said: This is a hasan sahih hadith. This indicates that the sandals were not upon them, because if they were, he would not have mentioned the sandals; for it is not said: "I wiped upon the khuff and its sandal." Furthermore, the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) wiped upon the jawrabayn, and no dissenter appeared among them in their era, so it constitutes a consensus. Also, it is a covering for the place of the obligatory wash that remains stable on the foot, so wiping upon it is permissible, like a sandal. As for their argument that it is not possible to continuously walk in them, we say: Wiping upon them is not permissible unless it is of such type that it remains stable by itself and it is possible to continuously walk in it. As for the thin one, it is not a covering.

Section: Ahmad was asked about a sock made of rags: may one wipe upon it? He disliked the rags. Perhaps Ahmad disliked them because they are usually light and do not remain stable by themselves. If they are like a wool sock in terms of thickness and stability, then there is no difference. Ahmad said in one place: Wiping upon the jawrab does not suffice him until it is a thick jawrab that stands upright on his leg, and does not...