Purity from one place to another is a matter of convenience and suspicion. Rather, we said that it is permissible, not obligatory, because the obligation contradicts the permissibility. The owner of the slippers may strip off his slippers and wash his feet according to Islamic law or wipe them with water as required by his doctrine regarding that, and there is no objection to that. Likewise, this rational person may maintain his integrity of footsteps and not He moves to jogging [page 346 of the Cairo edition] and removes it from this foot by virtue of what precedes understanding, as he explained that the foot is similar in its relation to the truth to the relation of our feet to us in all respects. For this reason, the obligation was not related to wiping, and its ruling was permissibility
(He has arrived) As for those who allow him to travel and prohibit him in the city
that is if purification is an action, it has no effect except on the learner, the listener, the receptive person, so purification travels from the learned scholar to the learner on the mount of pronunciation and speech. With a phrase or reference from the teacher to the learner
(he has arrived) and as for those who prohibit its permissibility at all
the reality of dispassion is only It belongs to God, Glory be to Him, for He is exalted in Himself, and the servant is never exalted, and it is not valid. If he deviates from one thing unless he deviates from another thing, then it is its reality.