Islamic Fiqh > Purification (Tahara) > Wiping over the khuff and the bandage (jabira) > Duration, socks and the jabira
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 1:14 PM
This second part of the file on wiping (mash) over the khuffs and the jabira gathers nine sheets from the fiqh encyclopedia. It deals with the nullifiers of wiping over khuffs, the expiry of its period, wiping over socks (jawarib), the starting point for counting the period, and then all the rules of wiping over the bandage (jabira): its conditions, how its wearer attains purity, its nullifiers, and its differences with wiping over the khuff. Each school position is cited with its classical references.
The jurists agree that whatever nullifies ablution (wudu), such as the causes mentioned earlier, also nullifies wiping over the khuffs, because wiping is a substitute (badal) for part of ablution, and a substitute is nullified by the nullifier of the original. If the ablution of the one wiping over his khuffs is nullified, he performs ablution anew, then wipes over his khuffs if the period of wiping is still running; otherwise he removes them and washes his feet (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/45; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/462).
First nullifier: the presence of a cause requiring the major ablution, such as janaba, menstruation or post-partum bleeding. The jurists agree that when one of these occurs, wiping is nullified, the two khuffs must be removed, and the whole body washed.
The Messenger of Allah used to order us, when we were traveling, not to remove our khuffs for three days and their nights, except because of janaba.Reported by Safwan ibn Assal
This hadith is graded hasan and was cited earlier (see Al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/108; Al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 1/462; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/68; Rawdat al-Talibin, 1/133; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/45; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 93).
Second nullifier: removing the two khuffs or one of them. Removing one khuff equals removing both, because nullification cannot be partial; otherwise washing and wiping would have to be combined. The same applies if he lets the greater part of the foot come out of the khuff: the wiping is nullified, because the place of wiping (the two feet) has separated from its location, and the greater part takes the ruling of the whole by predominance (taghlib).
The jurists then differ: must the one who removes his khuffs, or one of them, repeat his entire ablution, or does washing the two feet suffice?
Ibn Taymiyya indeed says: 'The ablution of the one wiping over the khuff and the turban is not nullified by removing them', a statement completed in the next section.
'... nor by the expiry of the period, and he owes neither wiping his head nor washing his feet. This is the madhhab of al-Hasan al-Basri, like removing the wiped-over hair according to the correct view in the madhhab of Ahmad and the view of the majority (Al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 4/391)', as narrated by al-Tahawi (Sharh al-Ma'ani, 1/97) and al-Bayhaqi (1/288) from Abu Dabyan: he saw Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) standing, call for water, perform ablution and wipe over his sandals; he then entered the mosque, removed his sandals and prayed. Al-Bayhaqi adds that he then led the people in prayer. Al-Albani said that both chains are sahih according to the condition of the two shaykhs (see Tammam al-Minna, 1/115), and Al-Majmu' (1/590-591) grades them sahih.
Third nullifier: the expiry of the period. The majority of jurists (the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, as well as Ibn Abd al-Barr among the Malikis) hold that when the period expires, namely one day and night for the resident and three days with their nights for the traveler, wiping over the khuffs is nullified, based on the hadith of Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him):
The Messenger of Allah set three days and their nights for the traveler, and a day and a night for the resident.Reported by Mouslim (276)
A temporary ruling ends when its term ends: when the period expires, he performs ablution and prays if he is in a state of minor impurity. Ibn Abd al-Barr said: this is the precaution in my view, because wiping is established by mass transmission (tawatur), accepted by all the people of the Sunna, and the heart is at ease with it. When most of them stated that wiping is not allowed for the resident beyond a day and a night (five prayers), nor for the traveler beyond fifteen prayers (three days and their nights), the scholar must perform his prayer with certainty, and certainty lies in washing, until they agree on wiping and their majority concurs (Al-Istidhkar, 1/221).
They differ if the period expires while he is in a state of purity: must he repeat his entire ablution, or does washing the two feet suffice?
The jawrab is what a person wears on his feet, whether made of wool, cotton, linen or the like. The jurists differed on the permissibility of wiping over them. Abu Hanifa, Malik and al-Shafi'i allow wiping over socks only under two conditions: that they be leather-backed (mujallad), that is with a piece of leather sewn on top and underneath, for they then stand in place of the khuff; or that they have a leather sole (muna''al), that is a piece of leather fixed underneath. In both cases water does not reach the foot, since leather does not let water through. Without these two conditions wiping is not allowed, as one cannot walk continuously in them as in thick socks; if they are thin and let water through, wiping over them is forbidden by consensus, as Imam al-Kasani states.
Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) says: 'As for wiping over socks: if they are leather-backed or soled, it suffices without disagreement among our companions; if they are neither: if they are thin and let water through, wiping over them is not allowed by consensus; if they are thick, it is not allowed according to Abu Hanifa, and allowed according to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad.' It is reported that Abu Hanifa returned to their view at the end of his life: he wiped over his socks during his illness, then said to his visitors: 'I have done what I used to forbid people from', and they used this as evidence of his return.
In al-Shafi'i's view, wiping over socks is not allowed, even if they have soles, unless they are leather-backed up to the heels.
Abu Yusuf and Muhammad argue with the hadith of Mughira ibn Shu'ba: 'The Prophet performed ablution and wiped over the socks', and with the fact that the permission granted for the khuff aims at removing the hardship of removing it, a hardship also found in the sock, unlike the wrapping band (lifafa) and the cubical bandage (muka'ab), whose removal involves no hardship. For Abu Hanifa, the permissibility of wiping over khuffs is established by text, not by analogy: whatever resembles the khuff in allowing walking and travel attaches to it, and what lacks these traits does not; ordinary socks, neither leather-backed nor soled, do not share this meaning. As for the argument that wiping was legislated for comfort (tarfih), the need for comfort exists in what is mostly worn, and socks are not mostly worn, so there is no need for comfort and the original obligation from the Book remains: the washing of the feet. The hadith may mean the socks were leather-backed or soled, and this is our view; it has no general scope, for it describes a state: do you not see that it did not cover thin socks? As for the khuff made of felt (lubd), it is not mentioned in the apparent text of the narration; some subject it to the detail already mentioned, others say: if it can endure travel, wiping over it is allowed, otherwise not, and this is the most correct view (Badai' al-Sanai', 1/46-47; see also Radd al-Muhtar, 1/451; Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/191; Al-Istidhkar, 1/222; At-Taj wal-Iklil, 1/320; Al-Khulasa al-Fiqhiyya, 1/45; Al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya, 1/30; Al-Majmu', 1/564; Al-Ifsah, 1/101; Awn al-Ma'bud, 1/187; Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi, 1/278 and 283).
Imam Ahmad and the two companions of the Hanafi school, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, as well as Abu Hanifa according to those who report his late change of view, allow wiping over socks under two conditions. The first: that they be thick (safiqa), such that nothing of the foot shows and the skin is not visible through them. The second: that one can walk continuously in them and that they stay up by themselves, without being fastened by laces or the like.
It is also reported from Ahmad: 'He wipes over them if they stay on the foot', and elsewhere: 'If he can walk in them without their bending, wiping is fine; if they bend, the place of ablution becomes exposed.' They cite the hadith of Mughira ibn Shu'ba:
The Prophet wiped over the socks and the sandals.Authentic hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (159), al-Tirmidhi (99), al-Nasa'i in Al-Kubra (130), Ibn Majah (559), Ibn Khuzayma in his Sahih (198) and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (1338)
This hadith proves that the sandals were not on the Prophet's feet, for had they been, he would not have mentioned the sandals: one does not say 'I wiped over the khuff and its sole'. Add to this the hardship removed by the permission for the khuff, present in the sock, and the fact that Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) wiped over socks. Ahmad said: 'Wiping over socks is reported from seven or eight Companions of the Prophet.' Ibn al-Mundhir said: 'The permissibility of wiping over socks is reported from nine Companions of the Messenger of Allah: Ali, Ammar, Ibn Mas'ud, Anas, Ibn Oumar, al-Bara', Bilal, Ibn Abi Awfa and Sahl ibn Sa'd; no opponent appeared in their era, which makes it a consensus.'
The sock indeed covers the place of obligation that remains on the foot, so wiping over it is allowed as with the sandal. To the objection that continuous walking in them is not possible, Ibn Qudama answers: wiping is allowed only on what stays up by itself and allows continuous walking, and thin cloth is not covering. Ahmad was asked about a sock made of patched cloth (khiraq): may one wipe over it? He disliked the patched cloth, probably because it is usually light and does not stay up by itself; were it like the wool sock in thickness and stability, there would be no difference. He said elsewhere: 'Wiping over the sock does not suffice until it is a thick sock that stands upright on the leg without collapsing, like the khuffs. The people wiped over socks because these were to them like the khuff on the leg: one goes out and comes back in them.' Al-Mirdawi said in Al-Insaf: 'If the sock is light, shows the foot, or falls off when walking, wiping over it is not allowed, without dispute' (Al-Mughni, 1/376-377; see Badai' al-Sanai', 1/46-47; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/451; Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/191; Al-Ifsah, 1/101; Al-Insaf, 1/182).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) says: 'Wiping over socks is allowed if one can walk in them, whether leather-backed or not, according to the more correct of the two scholars' views; in the Sunan: the Prophet wiped over his socks and his sandals' (authentic hadith cited earlier). If this hadith is not established, analogy requires it: the difference between socks and sandals is only that the latter are leather and the former wool, and such a difference carries no weight in the Law; no more difference between leather, cotton, linen or wool than was made between black and white garments in ihram as to what is forbidden and permitted. At most, leather outlasts wool: this has no effect, just as the strength of leather has no effect; wiping is allowed both on what lasts and on what does not. The need to wipe over one equals the need to wipe over the other: with equality of wisdom and need, distinguishing between them amounts to distinguishing between two identical things, contrary to the justice and sound consideration brought by the Book and the Sunna; whoever distinguishes because water passes through one and not the other has mentioned a rejected, ineffective difference.
Should someone object that water reaches wool more than leather, so wiping over it would be more worthy so that purity reach it more: this objection is invalid, and the failures of the critique do not prevent the permissibility of wiping. If the socks stay up only when tied, wiping over them is allowed according to the correct view (Majmu' al-Fatawa, 21/214-215). He also says: the sock of patched cloth is like the wool sock if it is thick, where one usually walks in its like; if it is thin, tearing within two or three days, or does not stay up by itself, it is not wiped over, for one does not usually walk in its like and there is no need to wipe over it (Sharh al-Umda, 1/251).
Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 'Wiping over socks was affirmed by Ata ibn Abi Rabah, al-Hasan and Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib when they are thick; and it is also affirmed by al-Nakha'i, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, al-Amash, Sufyan al-Thawri, al-Hasan ibn Salih, Ibn al-Mubarak, Zufar, Ahmad and Ishaq.' Ahmad said: 'Seven or eight Companions of the Prophet did it.' Ishaq said: 'The Sunna passed on, from the Companions of the Prophet and those after them among the Tabi'in, concerning wiping over socks, with no disagreement among them.' Abu Thawr said: 'He wipes over them if he can walk in them', and likewise Ya'qub and Muhammad. As for the wrapping band (lifafa), it does not stay up by itself, only by being tied, and we know of no disagreement on this (Al-Mughni, 1/182; Al-Sharh al-Kabir by al-Rafi'i, 1/247).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya says: 'Wiping over wraps (lafaif) is allowed according to one of the two views, narrated by Ibn Tamim and others: that one wraps the leg with wraps against cold, for fear of being barefoot, or because of a wound in the leg. They are even more deserving of wiping than the khuff and the sock: such wraps are habitually used out of need, and removing them causes harm, whether through exposure to cold, the discomfort of bare feet, or injury to the wound; if wiping over khuffs and socks is allowed, then over these wraps all the more.' Whoever claims consensus on any of this only displays ignorance: he cannot cite even ten famous scholars prohibiting it, let alone a consensus. The dispute is well known in Ahmad's madhhab and elsewhere: the basis of wiping over khuffs remained unknown to many of the early and later generations, to the point that some Companions disapproved of it, and some jurists of Medina and of the Prophet's household disapproved of it absolutely, in a narration from Malik; the famous position attributed to him is its permissibility in travel but not in residence (Majmu' al-Fatawa, 21/184-185).
The jurists differed: is the period counted from the moment one entered a state of impurity (hadath), or from the moment of wiping after the hadath, that is, after the first ablution following it? Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad according to the more correct of the two narrations from him: the period starts at the moment of the hadath, not at the moment of wiping. If he enters a state of impurity and does not wipe until a day and a night (or three days if traveling) have passed since the hadath, the period has expired and wiping is no longer allowed: he must put the khuffs back on in a state of purity. Time spent without entering a state of impurity does not count: if he remains a day in purity after putting the khuffs on and then enters a state of impurity, he then has, from that point, a day and a night if resident, and three days with their nights if traveling.
Al-Shafi'i said: 'When a man puts on his khuffs in a state of purity for prayer and prays in them, then enters a state of impurity while knowing the moment he did so, even if he only wipes afterward: if he is resident, he wipes until the equivalent moment the next day, that is a day and a night, no more; if he is a traveler, he wipes for three days and their nights, cutting the wiping at the moment he began it on the third day, no more. If he performs ablution, puts on his khuffs, then enters a state of impurity before the sun declines, he wipes for the dhuhr, asr, maghrib, isha and subh prayers; as long as his ablution holds he prays with the first wiping; if it is nullified, he may still wipe until the hour of his hadath the next day, that is a day and a night. When the time at which he wiped arrives, the wiping expires, even without a new hadath, and he must then remove his khuffs; if he removes them and performs ablution, he remains in a state of ablution. Each time he puts on his khuffs and then enters a state of impurity, he wipes until the equivalent hour, and his wiping then expires at that hour, even if he did not enter a state of impurity again (Al-Umm, 1/35).'
Al-Shafi'i continues: he does the same in travel for three days and their nights, wiping on the third day until the equivalent of the hour at which he entered a state of impurity (Al-Umm, 1/35). Imam Ahmad, in one narration, holds that the period starts from the moment of wiping after the hadath. Al-Nawawi says this is the preferred choice on the evidence, chosen by Ibn al-Mundhir, and it is one view among the Hanafis (Badai' al-Sanai', 1/40; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/456; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi, 1/85; Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/180; Tuhfat al-Fuqaha, 1/84; Al-Majmu', 1/553; Al-Mughni, 1/371; Al-Insaf, 1/177; Al-Ifsah, 1/100).
As for the one who performs ablution, enters a state of impurity, wipes over his khuffs while resident, then travels before completing a day and a night: the Hanafis and Ahmad in one narration hold that he may wipe as a traveler and complete three days and their nights, counting what he did while resident. The evidence is his words 'The traveler wipes for three days and their nights', and this man is a traveler; he traveled before the period expired and thus resembles the one who traveled before wiping, just as one whose prayer time entered while resident and who then travels prays there the traveler's prayer (Badai' al-Sanai', 1/40-41; Al-Mabsut, 1/104; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/466; Al-Mughni, 1/372; Al-Awsat, 1/445).
As for the jabiras, the answer reported from the Prophet is: 'Wipe over it' (reported by Ibn Majah, 67); yet al-Nawawi notes that this hadith is unanimously regarded as weak and disparaged. Also cited is the account of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him):
We set out on a journey when one of our men was struck by a stone that gashed his head, then he had a wet dream. He asked his companions: 'Do you find for me a dispensation allowing tayammum?' They answered: 'We find no dispensation for you while you are able to use water.' He washed and died. When we came to the Prophet, he was informed of this and said: 'They killed him, may Allah kill them! Why did they not ask, since they did not know? The cure of ignorance is asking. It would have sufficed him to perform tayammum and bandage a cloth over his wound, wipe over it, and wash the rest of his body.'Reported by Abu Dawud (336)
This hadith is graded hasan (Abu Dawud, 336), but the parenthetical addition in the report is weak. Wiping over the jabira is also justified by need, for its removal causes hardship and harm (Badai' al-Sanai', 1/58; Al-Majmu', 2/340; Al-Mughni, 1/355).
The scholars set conditions for the permissibility of wiping over the jabira:
The Hanafis, the Malikis and the Shafi'is according to a view deemed odd in their school, which is the second narration from Ahmad, do not require prior purity: if he put it on while impure and then performed ablution, he may wipe over it. Al-Khallal (may Allah have mercy on him) reported that Harb, Ishaq and al-Marwazi transmitted from Ahmad an easygoing stance on this, arguing with Ibn Oumar's statement, for this is something that cannot be pinned down precisely and is very hard on people. Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) strengthens this with Jabir's hadith about the man with the gash: 'It would have sufficed him to bandage a cloth over his wound and wipe over it', with no mention of purity; likewise the order given to Ali to wipe over the jabiras without requiring purity; and wiping over the jabira is allowed to remove the hardship of removal, a hardship the same whether it was put on in purity or not (Al-Mughni, 1/356; see Badai' al-Sanai', 1/63; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/470; Al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/140; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/361; Al-Majmu', 2/342; Kashshaf al-Qina', 1/113-114; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 104).
When the wearer of a jabira wants to attain purity, he does the following. First: he must wash the healthy limbs of his body, for the broken limb loses only its washing; even were it wholly missing, washing the remainder remains obligatory by consensus. Second: wiping over the jabira, on which the scholars agree, except for a view reported by al-Rafi'i from al-Hanati's account that tayammum would suffice, with no wiping of the jabira with water; this view is also transmitted by the author of Al-Udda and chosen by qadi Abu al-Tayyib. Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) says: the first madhhab is indeed wiping over the jabira.
Requiring that the whole jabira be covered by the wiping is the position of the Malikis, the Shafi'is in the madhhab and the Hanbalis, while for the Hanafis the opposite view is the more correct: in their sounder view, full coverage is not required. Al-Durr al-Mukhtar states: 'Neither coverage nor repetition is required in its wiping according to the more correct view (wiping most of it suffices), once only: this is the position on which fatwa is given.' Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) says: if he omits wiping part of the jabira and wipes most of it, it is allowed, otherwise not, unlike wiping the head and wiping the khuffs, where most is not required, for the Law set a fixed measure there which is not exceeded; here the Law set no measure but prescribed wiping over the jabiras, whose apparent meaning requires the whole; since that involves hardship, the majority was made to stand for the whole, and Allah knows best.
Among the Shafi'is, al-Nawawi records in Al-Majmu' the question: must the whole jabira be covered by the wiping, as the face in tayammum, or does wiping what bears the name suffice, as the head and the khuff? Two famous views exist; the sounder with the school's companions requires full coverage, and it is the madhhab of Abu Hanifa and Ahmad. This applies when the jabira is fitted exactly to the wound; if it exceeds it, the Hanafis and the Malikis have him wipe over the excess in a follow-up manner, if washing beneath the excess harms. The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, for their part: he wipes the jabira over everything bordering the place of need, with no obligation to wipe the excess in place of what lies beneath. The Shafi'is require washing whatever can be washed, even what lies under the edges of the jabira on the healthy side, by placing a wet cloth and wringing it so those spots are washed by the dripping water; wiping over the jabira once suffices, even if it sits where washing is done three times. In the view opposed to the more correct Hanafi one: repeating the wiping is recommended, for it substitutes washing whose repetition is recommended, provided it is not on the head.
Third: the Shafi'is add, in their famous view, tayammum in addition to washing and wiping: he must perform tayammum after washing his healthy limbs and after wiping over the jabira. Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) says: there are two paths; the sounder and more famous, on which the majority ruled it contains two opinions, holds with the majority that it is obligatory, which is al-Shafi'i's text in Al-Umm, followed by al-Buwayti and al-Kabir; the second denies it, which is his text in the old work (al-Qadim) and the apparent sense of his Mukhtasar, validated by shaykh Abu Hamid, al-Jurjani and al-Ruyani in Al-Hilya. Al-Abdari said: Ahmad and the rest of the jurists said this. The second path is narrated by the Khurasanis and validated by al-Mutawalli among them: if what is beneath the jabira is ailing and could not be washed were it exposed, tayammum is obligatory like the wound; if it could be washed were it exposed, tayammum is not obligatory, as with the wearer of the khuff. The madhhab is that it is obligatory, argued in Al-Muhadhdhab from Jabir's hadith reported above. Al-Shirazi explains that he resembles the wounded man, who forgoes washing the limb for fear of harm, and the wearer of the khuff, whose limb can be washed without harm but whose hardship lies in removing the screen; the two cases blending, combining wiping and tayammum becomes obligatory.
The Hanbalis mention two cases in which tayammum is obligatory along with washing and wiping. First: one who put on the jabira without purity and fears removing it, according to the view that purity is a condition for wiping over the jabira. Second: the wearer who extended the jabira beyond the place of need and fears removing it: he washes the healthy limbs, wipes over the jabira and performs tayammum for the excess, for it is a place where harm is feared from the use of water, and he performs tayammum for it as for the wound itself. Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) says: what lies at the place of need calls for wiping, and the excess calls for tayammum.
Fourth: if the head bandage ('isaba) is on the head, and enough of the head remains for a valid wiping, he wipes that remainder; otherwise he wipes over the bandage. Such is the position of the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in one view, for the obligation with them is wiping part of the head. As for whoever holds that the obligation is wiping the whole head, such as the Malikis and the Hanbalis in the madhhab, he wipes over the bandage and over what remains of the head. This applies to ablution; in the major ablution, he wipes over the bandage and washes the rest (Badai' al-Sanai', 1/58 and 63; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 1/45 and 53; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/470 and 473; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi on Al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/162 and 165; Minh al-Jalil, 1/96-97; Jawahir al-Iklil, 1/30; Al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/140-141; Al-Majmu', 2/341 and 343; Asna al-Matalib, 1/82; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 1/265-266; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 103-104; Al-Mughni, 1/356-357; Kashshaf al-Qina', 1/114 and 120; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 1/62).
First case: the jabira falling off or being removed upon the healing of the fracture or wound nullifies wiping over it. If he was in minor impurity and wants to pray, he performs ablution and washes the spot of the jabira if the wound is on the limbs of ablution: this is agreed upon. If he was not in minor impurity: the Hanafis and the Malikis hold that he washes only the spot of the jabira. Al-Kasani explains that since he is able to perform the original (washing), the ruling of the substitute lapses and only its washing is required: the ruling of washing, namely purity, remains established in the other limbs since what would remove it, the impurity, is absent. The Shafi'is: he washes the spot of the jabira and what follows it, out of regard for the order: if the jabira is on the hand, he washes the hand, wipes his head and washes his foot. The Hanbalis: his ablution is void and he performs it anew from the beginning. As for the major ablution, if he had wiped over it during a washing covering the whole body, washing only its spot suffices after it falls, if he is not in minor impurity, with no need to repeat the washing or the ablution, for order and continuity are waived in the major purification (Badai' al-Sanai', 1/62; Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/171; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 1/166; Al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/141; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/95; Al-Mughni, 1/356; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 1/64).
Second case: the jabira falling off without healing voids the purity for the Hanbalis, and a view to this effect exists among the Shafi'is; accordingly, redoing ablution or completing the major ablution is required. As for the Malikis, who share the more correct Shafi'i view, only the jabira's wiping is nullified: if it falls without healing, he puts it back in place without having to repeat the wiping. All this applies outside prayer; within prayer, if the jabira falls upon healing, the prayer is void by consensus; if it falls without healing, the prayer is void according to the majority, while for the Hanafis it is not void, it continues, and he does not start it over (Badai' al-Sanai', 1/61; Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/198; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/472).
The Malikis specify: if it falls during the prayer, the prayer is void; he replaces the jabira and repeats the wiping over it if the interruption was not long, then resumes his prayer; if the interruption was long through forgetfulness, he builds on his intention, otherwise he starts his purification anew. The jabira falling from under the head bandage, so long as the bandage wiped over remains above the wound, does not void the prayer (Al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/142; Al-Khulasa al-Fiqhiyya, 1/47).
Wiping over the jabira differs from wiping over the khuff on many points: