as the wiping of a resident and removes them. And if a traveler wipes for a day and night or more, then takes up residence or arrives, he removes them.
This is the position of al-Shafi'i and the scholars of opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y), and I know of no dissenter regarding it, because he has become a resident, so it is not permissible for him to wipe with the wiping of a traveler, just as in the instance of consensus. Also, because wiping is an act of worship whose ruling differs between residence and travel; if one begins it during travel then becomes a resident during its course, the ruling of residence prevails, as in prayer. Based on this, if he wipes for more than a day and a night, then enters into prayer, and intends residency during its course, his prayer is invalidated; because the wiping has been invalidated, thus his purification is invalidated, and consequently his prayer is invalidated due to its [the purification's] invalidation. Even if he engages in prayer on a ship, and it enters the city during its course, his prayer is invalidated for that reason.
84 - Issue: He said: (And he does not wipe except upon two khuffayn [leather socks], or what takes their place, such as a cut one or what resembles it, from that which exceeds the ankles.)
Its meaning, and Allah knows best, is that which takes the place of the two khuffayn in covering the area of the obligatory wash, the possibility of walking in them, and them being stable by themselves. The "cut one" is the khuff with a short shaft. Wiping upon it is only permissible if it covers the area of the obligatory wash, such that the ankles are not visible from it, due to it being tight or bound. This is what al-Shafi'i and Abu Thawr stated. If it were cut below the ankles, it would not be permissible to wipe upon it. This is the correct view from Malik. It was narrated from him, and from al-Awza'i, that wiping is permissible because it is a khuff in which one can continuously walk, so it resembles the covering one. As for us, it does not cover the area of the obligatory wash, so it resembles the lalkah and sandals.
Section: If the khuff has a foot and has a sharij [tie/binding] parallel to the area of the obligatory wash, it is permissible to wipe upon it if the sharij is bound, covering the foot, and there is no gap in it from which the area of the obligatory wash is visible. Abu al-Hasan al-Amidi said: It is not permissible. As for us, it is a covering khuff in which one can continuously walk, so it resembles that which has no sharij.
(1) Thus the author mentioned it, as it appears in the attribution, so it is said "al-Lalka'i," attributed to the selling of lalik (footwear worn on the feet), against the rule. It is likely the singular. See: al-Lubab fi Tahdhib al-Ansab 3/300, and Taj al-Arus 7/174. (2) Al-sharij: the loops of the bag, meaning the point of fastening thereof.
عَلَى مَسْحِ مُقِيمٍ وَخلَعَ، وإذَا مَسَحَ مُسَافِرٌ يَوْمًا ولَيْلَةً فَصَاعِدًا، ثُمَّ أقَامَ أوْ قَدِمَ، خلَعَ)
وهذا قَوْلُ الشَّافِعِىِّ، وأصْحَابِ الرَّأْىِ، ولا أعْلَمُ فيه مُخَالِفًا؛ لأنَّهُ صارَ مُقِيمًا، لم يجزْ له أنْ يَمْسَحَ مَسْحَ المُسَافِرِ، كمَحَلِّ الوِفَاقِ، ولأنَّ المَسْحَ عِبادةٌ يَخْتَلِفُ حُكْمُها بالحَضَرِ والسَّفَرِ، فإذا ابْتَدَأها في السَّفَرِ ثم حَضَرَ في أثْنَائِها، غَلَبَ حُكْمُ الحَضَرِ، كالصَّلَاةِ. فعَلَى هذا لو مَسَحَ أَكْثَرَ مِنْ يَومٍ ولَيْلَةٍ، ثم دَخَلَ في الصَّلاةِ، فنَوَى الإِقامَةَ في أَثْنَائِها، بَطَلَتْ صَلَاتُهُ؛ لأنَّه قد بَطَلَ المَسحُ، فبَطَلَتْ طَهارَتُه، فبَطَلَتْ صَلَاتُه لِبُطْلَانِها، ولو تَلَبَّسَ بالصَّلاةِ في سَفِينَةٍ، فدَخَلَتْ البلَدَ في أثْنَائِها، بَطَلَتْ صَلَاتُهُ لذلك.
٨٤ - مسألة؛ قال: (وَلَا يَمْسَحُ إلَّا عَلَى خُفَّيْنِ، أوْ مَا يَقُومُ مَقَامَهُما؛ مِنْ مَقْطُوعٍ أوْ مَا أشْبَهَهُ، مِمَّا يُجَاوِزُ الكَعْبَيْنِ)
مَعْنَاهُ، واللهُ أعلمُ، يَقُومُ مَقامَ الخُفَّيْنِ في سَتْرِ مَحلِّ الفَرْضِ، وإمْكانِ المَشْىِ فيه، وثُبُوتِه بِنَفْسِه. والمَقْطوعُ هو الخُفُّ القَصِيرُ السَّاقِ؛ وإنَّمَا يَجُوزُ المَسْحُ عليه إذا كان سَاتِرًا لِمَحَلِّ الفَرْضِ، لا يُرَى منه الكَعْبانِ؛ لِكَوْنِه ضَيِّقًا أو مَشْدُودًا، وبهذا قال الشَّافِعِيُّ، وأبو ثَوْرٍ. ولو كان مَقْطُوعًا مِنْ دونِ الكَعْبَيْنِ، لم يَجُزِ المَسْحُ عليه. وهذا الصَّحِيحُ عن مالِك. وحُكِىَ عنه، وعن الأوْزَاعِىِّ، جَوَازُ المَسْحِ؛ لأنَّه خُفٌ يُمْكِنُ مُتَابعَةُ المَشْىِ فيه، فأَشْبَهَ السَّاتِرَ. ولَنا، أَنَّه لا يَسْتُرُ مَحَلَّ الفَرْضِ، فأَشْبَهَ اللَّالكةَ (١) والنَّعْلَيْنِ.
فصل: ولو كان لِلْخُفِّ قَدَمٌ وله شَرَجٌ (٢) مُحَاذٍ لِمَحَلِّ الفَرْضِ، جَازَ المَسْحُ عليه، إذا كان الشَّرجُ مَشْدُودًا يَسْتُرُ القَدَمَ، ولم يكنْ فيه خَلَلٌ يَبِينُ منه مَحَلُّ الفَرْضِ. وقال أبو الحسن الآمِدِىُّ: لا يَجُوزُ. ولَنا، أنَّه خُفٌّ سَاتِرٌ يُمْكِنُ مُتَابَعَةُ
(١) كذا أورده المؤلف كما يرد في النسبة، فيقال "اللالكائى" نسبة إلى بيع اللوالك التي تلبس في الأرجل على غير قياس. ولعله المفرد. انظر: اللباب في تهذيب الأنساب ٣/ ٣٠٠، وتاج العروس ٧/ ١٧٤.(٢) الشرج: عُرَى العَيْبة، أي محل الربط منه.
