There is a difference in the ability to do that and the place of that hand. Whoever removes it with the characteristic of oppression and who removes it with policy and encouragement, just as a person wipes the head of an orphan with his hand to redress his brokenness with gentleness and tenderness. For this reason, a part of the hand is returned when wiping and all of it, so know that.

And since the reason for this disagreement according to the scholars is the presence of the “ba” in his saying, “By your heads,” whoever makes it a part of the wiping, and whoever makes it additional for emphasis in the wiping, applies the entire head to the wiping, and the “ba” in this position is the presence of the occurring power, so it is not devoid of either having an effect on what is decreed, so the partiality is valid. This is the saying of Al-Mu'tazili and others, or it has no effect on what is decreed in any way, then it is redundant, as Al-Ash'ari says, and its ruling is invalidated, so the old power applies to wiping the entire head, and its wiping does not replace the new power, and the limit of consideration for emphasis, from its being redundant for emphasis, is the acquisition that the Ash'aris said, which is the Almighty's saying. In more than one place in his book, he added earning and work to the created being, which is why they made adding it to a meaning call

Do you not see the Arabs contrasting the extra with the extra in their speech, meaning by that emphasis and responding to the one who said it? If he confirms his statement, the one who says, “Zaid is standing,” or he says, “Zaid is not standing.” The listener says in response, “Indeed, Zaid is standing, as long as he is standing.” And in the answer, “Indeed, Zayd is standing,” so he confirms what he denied. The speaker or denies what the speaker has proven. If the speaker confirms his affirmation and says that Zayd is standing, then insert the L to confirm the standing, the respondent inserts the B in opposition to the L to confirm the negation of what the speaker has proven, so he says what is added to the one who is standing, and such a thing is called redundant because the speech is independent without it, but if the speaker intends the opposite of the subjunctive and does that. The letter is for emphasis, since the intention of the derivation was not extra, that letter is a si

If we are ignorant of the meaning for which He, Glory be to Him, was created to enable us to perform some actions, we find that in our souls and we do not deny it. It is a voluntary movement, just as God Almighty placed in us the impediment to some actions that are apparent in us, and we find that in our souls like the trembling movement in which the trembling has no choice. We do not know why that is due. The mastery that we find from our souls, is it due to the ability occurring in us having an effect on that eye that exists from our ability or from the will created in us? So the ability is the effect of the will, not the effect of the ability occurring. From here arises the disagreement between those who have considered this issue, and therefore the human being should be accountable for the eye of ability. What he finds from himself and does not investigate with his mind, why does he attribute that mastery? Is it because he is capable or because he chooses, even if he is forced

And it is not known to what this ability and this capacity is due to either of them, I mean will or ability, or to something additional to them or to them, and this is known only through revelation, and it is not possible for us to reveal the truth in this issue because that does not remove the disagreement from the scholar regarding it, just as the disagreement regarding it has been removed from us. By unveiling, and how does the disagreement from the scholar go away, and the issue is reasonable, and every reasonable issue must be disputed due to the difference in view of breaking the fast. I have learned what wiping the head is in this method, and what remains of its ruling is wiping over the turban and what is in that ruling .

Among the Sharia scholars are those who permitted wiping over the turban and forbade doing so in a group. The one who was prohibited because it contradicted the meaning of the verse, it is not understood by the head as a turban, as covering the head is an incidental matter, and that is permissible because of the report reported in Muslim, which is a hadith in which he spoke and said. It contains Abu Omar bin Abd al-Barana, Maloul

As for the ruling on wiping the turban internally, know that incidental matters do not contradict the principles or discredit them, so what you should consider is what is the reason that causes this incident to become soft, as it must either be something that one cannot do without, or it may be something that would cause harm by losing it. He cannot dispense with it, and if he dispenses with it, there is no ruling on him to remove the ruling on the original. If he does not dispense with it and the damage occurs by losing it, then his ruling is the ruling on the original and its alternative, and if part of the original remains, that part that remains must and must be taken into account, and what remains of the original remains and replaces this matter. The accident that results in harm by losing it is our view of it, and for this reason it was mentioned in the hadith that we mentioned that it is invalid according to some scholars of this matter, that the wiping occurred on the