Islamic Fiqh > Purification (Tahara) > Wiping over the khuff and the bandage (jabira) > Wiping over the khuff: conditions and manner
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 1:14 PM
This is the first part of the dossier on the mash, that is, the passing of wet hands over the two khuff, the high footwear worn on the feet, as well as over bandages. The leading jurists are cited school by school with their proofs from the Quran and the Sunnah, together with references to their classical works. This part covers whether the mash is better than washing the feet, its duration, the conditions of the khuff, and then the way the wiping is performed and its extent.
As for the rejection of wiping attributed to Malik, al-Qurtubi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: what is narrated from him on this is an unfounded report that does not hold. The sound account is what he said near his death to Ibn Nafi': "I used to adopt, for my own person, the complete purification, and I do not consider deficient, in what is obligatory upon him, the one who wipes." On this basis, Ahmad ibn Hanbal interpreted what Ibn Wahb narrated from Malik: "I do not wipe, neither in residence nor in travel." Malik commanded (the people) to wipe over their khuff while he himself took his off and performed wudu, and he said: "Wudu has become dear to me." A similar statement is narrated from Abu Ayyub. Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: whoever leaves that, as Ibn Oumar, Abu Ayyub and Malik did, I do not hold it against him, and we prayed behind him without criticizing him; but if he abandons it while not deeming it permitted, in the manner of the people of innovation, then prayer behind him is not valid. And Allah, exalted is He, knows best (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 3/465).
Ibn Abd al-Barr, may Allah have mercy on him, said: I do not know anyone among the jurists of the Muslims from whom the rejection of wiping is narrated except Malik. Yet the authentic accounts transmitted from him, in his Muwatta, point the other way: all his companions and all the people of the Sunnah thus affirm wiping over the two khuff, in residence as in travel (al-Istidhkar, 1/218).
The jurists then debated which is better: washing the two feet in wudu, wiping over the two khuff, or simply the state in which the person actually is. The majority of jurists, namely the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and Ahmad according to one narration, held that washing is better than wiping: what is obligatory in the Book of Allah, the Most High, is washing, while wiping is a concession. The one who washes his feet therefore performs what Allah made obligatory upon him, and the one who wipes over his khuff does what he was permitted (Radd al-Muhtar, 1/441; al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/105; Sharh Sahih Mouslim, 3/136; al-Mughni, 1/360; al-Insaf, 1/169; al-Awsat, 1/479).
The Hanbalis, in the madhhab, held that wiping is better, for it is a concession from the Lawgiver. The Prophet, peace be upon him, said:
Allah loves that His concessions be taken just as He loves that His firm commands be observed.Sound hadith, narrated by Ibn Hibban in Mawarid al-Dham'an (1/228) and al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra (3/140), among others, from Ibn Oumar, may Allah be pleased with him
Wiping is also preferred because it entails opposing the people of innovation. It is likewise reported from Imam Ahmad that the two are equal in merit (al-Mughni, 1/360; al-Insaf, 1/169). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him, settled the matter: what is better for each person is what matches the state of his feet. For the one whose feet are bare, it is washing them; one should not seek to put on the khuff in order to wipe over them, just as the Prophet, peace be upon him, washed his feet when they were bare and wiped over them when he was wearing the khuff (al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 4/390; al-Ikhtiyarat al-fiqhiyya, p. 13).
The jurists differed: does wiping have a fixed term that it is forbidden to exceed, or may a person wipe over his khuff as long as he wishes, without limit? The majority, namely the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, limited the wiping to one day and one night for the resident, and to three days and their nights for the traveler. The proof is what Mouslim narrated from Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him:
The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, allowed the traveler three days and their nights, and the resident one day and one night.Reported by Mouslim (276)
al-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: this hadith contains the manifest proof and the clear indication of the doctrine of the majority, namely that wiping over the two khuff is limited to three days in travel and one day and one night in residence; such is the doctrine of Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad and the mass of scholars among the Companions and those who came after them (Sharh Sahih Mouslim, 3/144). In the same sense is the account of Awf ibn Malik al-Ashja'i:
The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, commanded wiping over the two khuff during the expedition of Tabuk: three days and their nights for the traveler, and one day and one night for the resident.Sound hadith, narrated by Imam Ahmad (24041), Ibn Abi Shayba (1847, 37011) and al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra (1223)
Imam Ahmad, who narrated this account, said: it is the most complete hadith on wiping over the two khuff, for it was said during the expedition of Tabuk, the last expedition led by the Prophet, peace be upon him, and it is his final act in this matter (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 1/38-39; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/456; al-Ifsah, 1/98; al-Mughni, 1/366; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/64).
The Malikis, for their part, held that wiping over the two khuff remains valid without any time limit: they are removed only when a cause of the full washing occurs. It is nevertheless recommended that the accountable person remove them once a week, on Friday, even without intending to wash for that reason. If he removes them for a reason or without one, the washing of the two feet then becomes obligatory.
They rely on what Ubayy ibn Imara narrated:
I said: O Messenger of Allah, may I wipe over my khuff? He said: Yes. I said: For a day? He said: For a day. I said: And two days? He said: And two days. I said: And three? He said: Yes, and as long as you wish.Weak hadith, narrated by Abu Dawud (158); al-Nawawi said: weak by the agreement of the scholars of hadith
The Malikis also argue that wiping is an act performed in a purity that is not tied to any term, like wiping the head in wudu and wiping over bandages. Time indeed has no effect in breaking purity: what breaks it is entering a state of minor ritual impurity through urine, stool or major impurity. A fixed term moreover contradicts the foundations of the purifications, which follow their causes and not their times; and when the reports clash, reasoning remains in place (al-Dhakhira, 1/323; al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/106; Jawahir al-Iklil, 1/24; al-Ifsah, 1/98).
al-Nawawi said: Malik held, in the famous position narrated from him, that one wipes without any time limit; this is an old view judged weak by al-Shafi'i. The hadith of Ibn Abi Imara (with the i vowel on the ayn) was cited to drop the time limit; it was narrated by Abu Dawud and others, and it is a weak hadith by the agreement of the scholars of hadith (Sharh Sahih Mouslim, 3/145). Abu Bakr al-Jassas, may Allah have mercy on him, answered: as for the hadith of Abu Imara, were it established, its words "and as long as you wish" would mean that one wipes as long as one wishes within the three days. It is not permitted to object to the reports fixing the term with such anomalous reports, open to several meanings, when the transmission from the Prophet, peace be upon him, fixing the term is widespread.
If it is objected: since wiping is permitted, it must be without term, like wiping the head; it is answered: reasoning has no place in the face of the report. If the reports fixing the term are established, reasoning falls along with them; if they are not, the discussion should bear on establishing them, and the term was indeed established by reports so abundant that they cannot be rejected. The difference between the two cases is moreover evident through reasoning: wiping the head is obligatory in itself and replaces nothing, while wiping over the two khuff replaces the washing even though performing it remains possible without necessity; its validity as a substitute is therefore limited to the measure for which the fixing of a term came (Ahkam al-Qur'an, 3/355).
Among the conditions on which the schools agree is, first, that the two khuff be put on in a state of purity, according to the hadith of al-Mughira ibn Shu'ba:
I was with the Prophet, peace be upon him, on a journey; I bent down to remove his khuff and he said: leave them, for I put them on while I was in a state of purity. And he wiped over them.Reported by Boukhari (260) and Mouslim (274)
The scholars nevertheless differed on some details of this condition. The majority of scholars, namely the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the madhhab, require that both khuff be put on in a complete state of purity. The one who washes one foot, puts on its khuff, then washes the other and puts on its khuff cannot therefore wipe, for he did not put them on after a complete state of purity. The hadith of al-Mughira cited above proves this: "leave them, for I put them on while pure" establishes as the cause the presence of purity on both at the time of putting them on, whereas purity did not exist at the time of putting on the first. That for which purity has been required, its completeness has been required as well, as for prayer and touching the Quran. Finally, the first khuff was worn before the removal of the state of minor impurity: wiping over it is invalid, as if it had been put on before washing the feet.
The Hanafis, Ahmad according to one narration, and a group of the companions of Imam Malik, among them Mutarrif and others, deem the previous scenario permissible. According to the Hanafis, the condition is that the wearer be in a complete state of purity at the moment the state of minor impurity occurs after the putting on; it is not required that he have been in a complete state of purity at the time of putting them on, nor even that he have ever been so at all.
The explanation is as follows: the one who washes both feet first, puts on his khuff, completes his wudu before incurring a state of minor impurity, then incurs one, may wipe over the khuff, the condition being met. The ordering of the acts of wudu according to the sequence of the verse is indeed not obligatory: the one who delays washing the feet by wiping the head first, then washing the hands and the face, has a valid wudu (Tuhfat al-Fuqaha, 1/85; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 1/42-43; al-Mabsut, 1/55; Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 1/35; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/453; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 88; al-Mughni, 1/360-361; al-Umm, 1/48; Asna al-Matalib, 1/94).
Ibn Rushd, may Allah have mercy on him, said: on this question the jurists differed concerning the one who washes his feet, puts on his khuff and then completes his wudu: does he wipe over them? The one who does not deem the order obligatory and holds the purity of each limb valid before the completion of the purity of all the limbs permits it: this is the view of Abu Hanifa. The one who deems the order obligatory and does not hold the purity of a limb valid before the purity of all the limbs rejects it: this is the view of al-Shafi'i and Malik. Malik, however, did not reject it on the grounds of the order, but because he holds that the purity of a limb does not exist until the whole purification is complete; yet it was said, peace be upon him: "the two are pure", a statement about the purity prescribed by the Law.
b. The jurists agree to require that the khuff be pure: wiping over an impure khuff, such as the skin of a dead animal, is not permitted. Untanned, that skin is impure by consensus; after tanning, wiping over it becomes permitted according to the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and one Hanbali opinion, for tanning purifies according to them. The Malikis and the Hanbalis in the madhhab reject it, for tanning does not purify according to them, as will be explained later, and because impurity is prohibited.
Likewise, if the khuff was tanned by one who deems it pure but then becomes contaminated by an impurity or by what does not purify, prayer in it becomes impossible. The original purpose of wiping, although it is not limited to it, is prayer, the other uses being subordinate to it. The khuff moreover substitutes for the foot, and the foot is not purified from the state of minor impurity as long as its impurity has not been removed: how then could one wipe over a substitute that is impure in itself, when what has been contaminated equals impurity? (al-Mabsut, 1/202; Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 11/175; al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/106; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/65; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 90).
c. The khuff must cover the area whose washing is obligatory in wudu. It is therefore not permitted to wipe over a khuff that does not cover the heels along with the foot. The one that falls short of the obligatory area does not allow wiping, without any disagreement: what is apparent requires washing, what is covered requires wiping, and no one says the two are combined (Radd al-Muhtar, 1/437; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 1/46; al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/107; Hashiyat al-Bujayrimi, 1/86; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/65; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 89; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 1/23).
d. The jurists also require the possibility of walking continuously in the two khuff over a defined distance. The Hanafis require the possibility of ordinary continuous walking over a farsakh or more, that is, three days of walking, or twelve thousand steps on the sound view, or, in another opinion, the duration of the lawful journey of the traveler. Wiping is therefore not permitted on the thin khuff that tears from walking that distance.
This suitability for the distance means that it serves that purpose by itself, without sandals being worn over it; its underside may be thin: one walks for days with sandals over it, whereas if one walked with it alone a farsakh, it would tear to the point of becoming invalid. Among the Hanafis, moreover, one may not make a khuff of glass, wood or iron; likewise, the one who wraps his foot in a too flimsy rag cannot wipe, for that rag does not cover the distance of the journey. Wiping is also not permitted on a khuff that does not stay on the foot without being tied (Radd al-Muhtar, 1/440).
The Malikis require that ordinary walking be possible in it: wiping is therefore not permitted on a too wide khuff that slips off the foot while walking, that is, one in which continuous walking is impossible (al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/107). The Shafi'is require that the khuff be strong enough to allow continuous walking to the extent of what the traveler needs during halts and travel. Ibn al-Imad said: what counts is being able to use it according to the needs of a day and a night for the resident and the like, and of three days and their nights for the traveler of a short journey; once the term has elapsed it must indeed be removed, so its strength is assessed by the possibility of wearing it for that. The same applies to the khuff made of leather or another material, such as raw hide or glass (Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 10; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/66). The Hanbalis, finally, deem it permissible to make a khuff of leather, wood or other material, on condition that continuous customary walking in it is possible and that it stays on the foot (al-Mughni, 1/375; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 1/22).
Next come the conditions on which the schools differ. The jurists debated: must the khuff be free of tears, or is wiping over a torn khuff permitted? The Shafi'is in the madhhab and the Hanbalis forbid wiping over a torn khuff, even slightly: what is uncovered requires washing, what is covered requires wiping, and the two cannot be combined; the ruling of washing therefore prevails, as if one foot were uncovered and the other covered (al-Majmu', 1/561-562; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 89; al-Mughni, 1/378; al-Insaf, 1/179).
The Hanafis, the Malikis, al-Shafi'i in his earlier view and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya permit wiping over the torn khuff when the tear is slight, in order to remove hardship from the accountable persons. Khuffs are indeed not ordinarily free of tears, continuous walking remains possible in them, and their case then resembles the sound khuff; most of the khuffs of the Arabs were moreover torn, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, commanded wiping over them without distinction, which refers mostly to the khuffs commonly worn among them. The Hanafis estimated the slight tear at the size of three fingers from the smallest of the toes (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 1/50-51; Radd al-Mukhtar, 1/437), while the Malikis estimated it at a third of the foot, this measure being excused (al-Istidhkar, 1/222; al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/108).
Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, said: this view is the more likely, for the concession is general and the word khuff covers the one with a tear and the one without. The Companions moreover included many poor people who traveled, so that some of their khuffs had tears; and the traveler may see his khuff tear without being able to repair it on the way: if wiping over it were not permitted, the purpose of the concession would not be achieved. The majority of scholars additionally excuse the appearance of a slight part of the awrah, as well as a slight impurity hard to avoid: the slight tear in the khuff is of the same kind.
The view of the one who claims that what is apparent requires washing is therefore rejected. The one who wipes over the khuff does not cover it entirely with his wiping, unlike the one who wipes over a bandage (jabira): he passes his hands over the top, not over the underside or the heel, and that stands in place of washing the foot. Wiping a part of the khuff therefore suffices for what borders the wiped area as well as for what does not: if the tear is at the heel, neither the washing nor the wiping of that spot is obligatory; and even on the top of the foot, wiping every part is not obligatory. Wiping over the khuff belongs to what the Sunnah came to broaden, to the point that it mentions wiping over socks and turbans: it is therefore not permitted that the purpose of the Lawgiver, facilitation, turn into hardship and restriction (Majmu' al-Fatawa, 21/212-213; al-Ikhtiyarat al-fiqhiyya, p. 24).
Ibn Rushd, may Allah have mercy on him, said: the cause of their disagreement on this lies in their dispute over the transfer of the obligation from washing to wiping: does it bear on the covered area, that is, what the khuffs cover, or on the hardship inherent in the type of khuffs? The one who holds the covered area does not admit wiping over the torn khuff, for as soon as something of the foot is uncovered, the obligation of both moves from wiping to washing. The one who holds hardship as the cause pays no attention to the tear as long as the thing deserves the name of khuff. As for distinguishing an extensive tear from a slight one, it is a preferential judgment meant to remove hardship. al-Thawri said: the khuffs of the Muhajirun and the Ansar were not free of tears, any more than the khuffs of other people; had that been forbidden, the ruling would have come down and been transmitted from them.
He adds: this question has been left without mention; had there been a ruling on it despite the general trial it involves, the Prophet, peace be upon him, would have explained it (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/42). Allah, the Most High, said:
"...so that you may explain to the people what was sent down to them..."
Surah an-Nahl, 44
b. The jurists differed: must the khuff be made of leather only, or is wiping permitted over any khuff made of cloth, wool or cotton? The Malikis require that the khuff be made of leather to the exclusion of any other material: wiping is therefore not permitted, according to them, over a khuff of cloth, wool or cotton, unless it is covered with leather. They likewise require the leather to be pierced or sewn: wiping is not permitted on what holds together by gluing (al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/106-107; Jawahir al-Iklil, 1/14).
The mass of scholars, namely the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, deem wiping lawful over a khuff made of leather or another material, on condition that it prevents water from reaching the foot, besides the other conditions. The khuff most often has that character, whether it stays on the foot by itself or by a tie (Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 1/127; al-Majmu', 1/561-562; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 89; al-Mughni, 1/378; al-Insaf, 1/179).
c. The khuff must also be worn alone; the one who wears something over it falls under a case detailed by the jurists. The Hanafis and the Malikis, in their preferred view, permit wiping over the jurmuq, that is, what is worn over the khuff and whose shaft is shorter than that of the khuff. The proof is the hadith of Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami, who witnessed Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf asking Bilal about the wudu of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him:
He would go out to relieve himself; I brought him water, he performed wudu and wiped over his turban and his muqam.Sound hadith, narrated by Abu Dawud (153), al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (605) and al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra (1276)
The muqam denotes, in their usage, the jurmuq. The ruling is the same for the khuff worn over the khuff: it equals the jurmuq worn over the khuff. The one who puts on two khuff in a state of purity, then incurs a state of minor impurity, wipes over them, then puts on another pair over them and incurs a new state of minor impurity, wipes over both together. Imam Malik said: the one who wears two khuff over two khuff wipes over the upper one. But if he wore the lower ones in a state of purity, incurred a state of minor impurity, then put on the upper ones before performing wudu, he wipes over the lower ones and not over the upper ones (al-Dhakhira, 1/329-330; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 1/178; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 1/319; Jawahir al-Iklil, 1/24-25; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/450; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 1/48-49; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/189; al-Hidaya, 1/29).
The Shafi'is give their own detail: al-Nawawi says in the Rawda that the jurmuq is what is worn over the khuff, usually in intense cold. The one who wears a khuff over a khuff falls into four cases:
al-Nawawi specifies: the more manifest view with the majority is the later one, but al-Qadi Abu al-Tayyib authenticated the earlier one in al-Furu'. Allah knows best. In the body of the Rawda he says: if we permit wiping over the jurmuq, Ibn al-Surayj mentioned three meanings for it; the most apparent is that the jurmuq substitutes for the khuff and the khuff substitutes for the foot. According to the second meaning, the lower is a kind of wrapper and the upper is the khuff. According to the third, the two are like a single khuff, the upper being its exterior and the lower its interior.
Questions branch off from these meanings. Among others: the one who wore both together in a state of purity and wishes to limit himself to wiping the lower: that holds on the first meaning, not on the other two. Likewise, the one who wore the lower in a state of purity and the upper in a state of minor impurity: on the permission of wiping the upper there are two approaches, one forbidding it, the other, the more correct, having two aspects: on the first and second meanings it does not suffice; on the third it suffices.
If the one who wore the lower in purity incurs a state of minor impurity, wipes over it and then puts on the jurmuq, the permissibility of wiping over the latter is built upon the meanings: on the first or the third it is permitted; on the second, it is not. It is also said that this permission depends on whether wiping the khuff removes the state of minor impurity: if it does, it is permitted, otherwise not. The second approach is to settle firmly on the removal of the state of minor impurity. And if wiping the upper is admitted in this question, Shaykh Abu Ali said that the term begins at the moment the first impurity occurred after the first wearing of the lower, while the permission to limit oneself to the lower remains subject to the previous disagreement (Rawdat al-Talibin, 1/127-128; al-Majmu', 1/569, 574).
The Hanbalis, for their part: al-Buhuti said that the one who wore a khuff and did not incur a state of minor impurity until he wore another over it, both being sound, wipes over whichever he wishes. If he wishes, he wipes over the upper, for it is a covering khuff established by itself, closer to the khuff worn alone; if he wishes, he wipes over the lower by inserting his hand under the upper, for each of the two is a place of wiping, which makes the wiping valid.
The one who wore one of the two jurmuqs on one foot, over its khuff, without wearing a sock on the other foot but only the khuff, may wipe over both: the ruling indeed attaches to the jurmuq and to the khuff of the other foot, as if there were nothing under it. If one of the two superimposed khuffs is sound and the other torn, wiping over the upper is permitted, for the two are like a single khuff; likewise if he wore the upper over a sound khuff bearing a tear, a statement expressly given in al-Mubdi'. Wiping over the lower, however, is not permitted if one of the two khuffs is sound and the other torn, unless the lower is the sound one: wiping over it is then valid, for it covers by itself, closer to the case of the khuff worn alone. When it is the upper that is sound, wiping over the lower is not valid, for it does not cover by itself. It is said in al-Insaf that each of the upper and the lower khuff is an independent substitute for the washing, on the sound view.
If the two khuffs are torn without one being over the other, but both cover the obligatory area, wiping over them or over one of them is not permitted: each, alone, is not fit for wiping, like the one who wears a torn khuff over a wrapper; and if he removes the upper before wiping it, that has no effect, as if it were alone. The one who performed wudu, wore a khuff, incurred a state of minor impurity and then wore the second khuff cannot wipe over the latter, for he wore it without purity; the wiping is done over the lower one. If he wipes over the first khuff after its state of minor impurity and then wears the second, even in a state of purity, wiping over the latter is not permitted: the wiped khuff indeed substitutes for the washing of what is under it, and a substitute admits no other substitute; the wiping is therefore done over the lower one, for it is the one the concession targeted. Finally, the one who wore a khuff over another before the state of minor impurity, wiped over the upper and then removed the wiped one, must remove the lower and repeat his wudu: it is the place of the wiping, its removal equals the removal of both, and the concession was attached to both, so that it becomes as if the foot were uncovered (Kashshaf al-Qina', 1/117-118; al-Mughni, 1/362, 364; al-Insaf, 1/193; al-Furu', 1/138).
The jurists differed on the extent of wiping over the two khuff. The Hanafis deem obligatory the measure of three fingers from the smallest fingers of the hand, on the outer side of the khuff only, in a single pass. It is said in al-Durr al-Mukhtar: what is obligatory in act is the measure of three fingers of the hand, the smallest, in length and width, for each foot. Ibn Abidin comments: this wording indicates that the fingers are not a condition, only their measure; if water or rain reaches the place of wiping to the extent of three fingers, it suffices; likewise if one walks in grass wet with rain, or with dew on the most correct view.
The method is to begin the wiping from the toes toward the shin: one places the fingers of the right hand on the front of the khuff of the right foot, and likewise the left, spreading the fingers slightly so that the wiping covers the greatest possible part of the khuff. That is why wiping on the underside of the foot, on its sides, on the heel or on the shin is not valid, and repeating the wipe is not recommended. Ibn Abidin adds: his words "for each foot" mean that this measure is obligatory from each one separately; it is said in al-Durr that even the one who wipes the measure of two fingers on one foot and of five on the other, it does not suffice (Radd al-Muhtar, 1/458; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 1/54-55; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/181-182).
The Malikis deem obligatory the wiping of the whole outer side of the khuff, and recommend wiping its underside. The one who leaves the wiping of the top for the underside has his prayer annulled; the one who wipes the top without the underside does not have his prayer annulled, but it is recommended that he repeat it within the time (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 1/183; al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/110; al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 1/189; Awjaz al-Masalik, 1/252; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/40).
The Shafi'is hold that the obligatory wiping is what the name of wiping applies to at the obligatory place, like wiping the head: the hand suffices, or a stick or the like, for the wiping came in absolute terms and nothing of its measure was established, so one is limited to what the name applies to. The obligatory place is the outer side of the khuff: wiping the underside, the heel or the sides does not suffice. It is nevertheless recommended to spread the wiping over the outer and the inner side crosswise, placing the left hand under the heel and the right on the top of the toes, then passing to the shin, that is, its end (Rawdat al-Talibin, 1/630; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/67; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/40).
The Hanbalis hold that what suffices is wiping most of the front of the outer side crosswise with the fingers; wiping more than that, on the inner side, the sides, the heel or the shin, is not recommended, and wiping the underside is not recommended either (al-Mughni, 1/379, 383; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/40; Rawdat al-Talibin, 1/630; al-Hidaya, 1/29; al-Dhakhira, 1/379, 383; Kashshaf al-Qina', 1/118; al-Ifsah, 1/99-100).
The cause of their disagreement on the recommendation of wiping the underside of the khuff, the doctrine of the Malikis and the Shafi'is, or on its non-recommendation, the doctrine of the Hanafis and the Hanbalis, lies in conflicting reports and in likening the wiping to the washing. Two reports clash. The first is the hadith of al-Mughira ibn Shu'ba:
He passed his hands over the top of the khuff and over its underside.Weak hadith, narrated by Abu Dawud (165), al-Tirmidhi (97) and Ibn Majah (550)
The second is the hadith of Ali, may Allah be pleased with him:
If the religion were based on opinion, the underside of the khuff would be more deserving of wiping than the top; yet I saw the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, wiping over the outer side of the khuffs.Sound hadith, mentioned earlier in the text
The one who follows the way of reconciling the two hadiths refers that of al-Mughira to recommendation and that of Ali to obligation. Ibn Rushd, may Allah have mercy on him, said: it is a fine method. The one who prefers one hadith takes either that of Ali or that of al-Mughira: whoever gives preference to that of al-Mughira over that of Ali does so by analogy, namely the analogy of wiping with washing, and whoever gives preference to that of Ali does so by opposing the analogy or through the chain of transmission (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/41). Ibn Qudama, may Allah have mercy on him, said: the inner side of the khuff is not a place of the obligatory wiping; it is therefore not a place of its recommended wiping, like the shin. That wiping, which is not obligatory, hardly escapes touching some harm that would soil the hand: abstaining from it is better (al-Mughni, 1/380).
Imam al-Tahtawi said, for his part: it behooves the rational person to follow the Law in devotion and submission, before his inability to grasp the divine wisdom. Imam Abu Hanifa said: if I went by opinion, I would have made washing obligatory for urine, an impurity agreed upon, and wudu for semen, an impurity disputed; and I would have given the male, in inheritance, half of the female's share, because she is weaker than him (Hashiyat al-Tahtawi 'ala Maraqi al-Falah, 1/86; see also al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/181; al-Tamhid, 11/147; al-Thamar al-Dani, 1/84).