Some of them see it as the purity of the Sharia is its vision from the One True God, and for this reason we should not challenge the ruling of a mujtahid, because the Sharia, which is the rule of God, has established that ruling, so it is the law of God by decreeing it, and it is an issue that all the followers of the schools of thought are forbidden because they do not remember what we have warned about, along with Because they were aware of it, but they neglected to bring it to mind, so they misbehaved with God in that matter, when the scholars among the servants of God won that. So whoever makes a mistake with a specific diligent person, then he has mistaken the truth in what he has decided by law.

If the Sharia is violated and it appears in the question of what is the rule of monotheism, which removes the rule of Sharia absolutely, then the rule of purity is transferred, which is the monotheism that affects the removal of the rule of Sharia. It is like someone who attributes all actions to God in all aspects, and does not care about what appears to him of contradiction or agreement, then such is monotheism. It must be removed from it due to the appearance of this effect, as it violates the law and is removed from the ruling of God, just as it is not permissible to wipe with the name of the khuff removed. If the breach is, the name of the khuff remains on it. The ruling is as we have determined regarding wiping over the khuff and wiping what appears on the leg, which is to clarify the specific monotheism in this issue. The legitimate approach is to say, “By God, He created you and what you do.” Deeds are God’s creation, even though they are attributed to us. He did not attri

The people of our path differed greatly on this issue in the same manner as the people of wiping differed regarding whether the socks were equal. As for those who limited it to three fingers, he took into account the emergence of monotheism in three stages, which is the ruling of the Sharia regarding a person in its meaning, in his senses, and in his imagination. If monotheism applies to these three, it is not permissible. Adopting it and moving to wiping or washing the foot, just as a person’s purification of himself from such monotheism is transferred, as the ruling of Sharia law is removed from it, so the ruling is applied to one from whom the name of the khuff is removed.

There is a difference of opinion regarding this, some who say that the timing includes three days and their nights for the traveler and one day and a night for the resident, and those who say that there is no timing and that he should wipe off what appears to him unless an impediment arises, such as ritual impurity.

As for the ruling on that in the interior, based on the doctrine of the one who says it is timely, we have stated in the chapter on the scholar and the learner that wiping over the socks is a journey, as the matter was passed from the teacher to the learner, and when the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, taught people their laws, he would repeat the word three times until Understand it because he is commanded to explain and convey this. This is the meaning of wiping a traveler three times.

As for timing the present day and night, he has nothing in himself but to establish that matter and teach it, so he does not repeat it to himself because it has appeared to him and he is certain of himself, and he is not certain that others will accept that when teaching, so he repeats it three times to be certain that he has understood it.

Whoever does not say specifically looks at the nature of the learners. Some of them understand it for the first time, and some of them do not understand except after detailing and repeating it time after time until he understands. He does not specify a specific number when he teaches others, which is like traveling, and he does not look at it in himself, which is like being at home. In himself, he might imagine that what appeared to him might be a suspicion, so he would examine it repeatedly, but there was no timing .

As for the ruling on impurity in removing the slippers, then impurity is alienation and foreign impurity. If a strange matter occurs in the heart that discredits the Sharia, he should consider it with reason without inferring the Sharia, such as if the mind of a Brahmin who denies the Sharia occurs to him, so he does not accept Sharia evidence to invalidate this statement that occurred to him. It is the subject of the dispute, so he must move from inferring according to Sharia law to inferring what the theoretical evidence gives him, whether that happens to him, such as when he is present, or for someone else, such as traveling. Just as the one who is in a state of impurity, whether he is traveling or present, it is necessary to remove his socks.

Whoever says that it is a condition for wiping that the feet be pure with the purity of ablution, and who says that it is not a condition except that they are cleansed of impurity, and I say that, and the first saying is more prudent, and another condition remains that there should be no slippers, then who says that it is permissible to wipe over them, and that is what I say, and who says that it is forbidden, and so on. The rule of the overshoes

As for the internal ruling on that, the inwardly reasonable purity is purity as we have established it by reason and Sharia, and this specific purity of the feet is legal purity. God Almighty has described Himself as having the right to trot for whoever approaches Him in pursuit, and striving and trotting are among the characteristics of the feet. So whoever separates the truth from trotting has lied to the truth in what He described Himself with it, even if reason does not accept, in terms of its evidence, this attribution to Him, the Most High, and faith accepts it and denies the comparison with His Most High’s saying, “There is nothing like Him.”