and the Ahl al-Ra'y (the people of rational reasoning). Malik prohibited it in one of his two narrations, and al-Shafi'i in one of his two opinions; because the need does not usually call for wearing it, so no general concession (rukhsa) is attached to it, like the splint (jabirah) (7). Our evidence is that it is a covering khuff in which continuous walking is possible, so it resembles the single (khuff) (8), and just like if the one underneath it were torn. His statement that "the need does not call for it" is rejected; for in cold countries, a single khuff is often insufficient. Even if we were to grant that, the need is considered by its evidence, which is the act of putting it on, not the need itself; thus it is like a single khuff. Once this is established, whenever he removes the outer one before wiping over it, it has no effect, and its wearing is as if it never existed. If he removes it after wiping over it, the purity is invalidated, and it becomes mandatory to remove the two khuffayn and wash the feet, because the place of wiping has vanished. Removing one of the two khuffayn is like removing both, because the concession was attached to both, so it is as if the foot were uncovered. If he inserts his hand from beneath the outer one and wipes the one underneath it, it is permissible; because each of them is a place for wiping, so it is permissible to wipe over whichever one he wishes of them, just as it is permissible to wash his foot while it is inside the khuff, even though he has the right to wipe over it. If he wears one of the two jurmuqs on one foot and not the other, it is permissible to wipe over it, and over the khuff on the other foot; because the ruling is attached to it and to the khuff on the other foot, so it is as if there were nothing beneath it.

Section: If he wears a torn khuff over an intact one, there is a narration from Ahmad concerning the permissibility of wiping. He said in the narration of Harb: The torn khuff (9), if there is a sock (jawrab) on his feet, he may wipe, even if the khuff is torn. But if there are wraps (lafa'if) or rags underneath it, it is not permissible to wipe. Ahmad explicitly stated this in several places. The reasoning is that the foot is covered by what is permissible to wipe over, so wiping is allowed just as it would be if the lower layer were exposed, unlike when there is a wrap underneath it. Al-Qadi and his followers said: Wiping is not permissible except on the lower one; because the outer one is not permissible to wipe over individually (10), so it is not permissible to wipe over it along with something else, like the one that has a wrap beneath it. And if he wears a torn one