Some imams differed in their opinions regarding mahrams, saying that the man washes the woman and the woman washes the man, saying that neither of them washes the other, and saying that the woman washes the man but the man does not wash the woman. It was presented in the chapter before this, our doctrine in this matter

p>

The man and the mahrams are all people of Sharia law, so the man among them who is perfect is the one who mastered knowledge and action, so he combined the apparent and the hidden, and the deficient among them are the jurists who know and do not know and they speak of the apparent but do not know the hidden as God Almighty said: They know the apparent of the life of this world, but they are heedless of the Hereafter.

If a mahram falls into a doubt or a desire for perfection or deficiency, if it is related to beliefs, then each one of them should wash the other, that is, he knows him to be correct in that matter, whether the one who knows about it is imperfect or perfect, and if it is in the rulings, each of them should not wash the other, for it is an established ruling. In the Sharia, whether it is complete or incomplete

Whoever sees that a woman washes a man, and this is the washing of the imperfect and complete, then the imperfect has the right to purify the complete if it is confirmed that the complete has fallen into suspicion, and it must be like the jurist who sees that the knower has sinned by committing something forbidden according to Islamic law, without disagreement, then he has the right to denounce him, and the knower knows best what he did, if it was as the jurist taught him. It is necessary for him to accept that purification with his repentance and retraction, even if the underlying matter is correct and the jurist issued a fatwa in the form and did not know the underlying matter, then the jurist has fulfilled what he is obligated to do, so he washes the complete deficiency .

The perfect person does not wash away the imperfect in such a matter, which is when the perfect reveals that a person is innocent of what is attributed to him, which necessitates the punishment, and the imperfect judge has ruled to impose the punishment on him, so the perfect person does not have the right to reject the ruling of the jurist in that issue because he knows of the innocence of the limited person, so the perfect person in such a case does not have the right to respond to The incomplete

Likewise, it is not permissible for a man to wash a woman if she dies because she is private.

He, peace and blessings of God be upon him, said about a woman who cursed her husband and lied, and he knew that, and God has ruled for cursing. In the same matter, the man told the truth and the woman lied, so he, peace and blessings of God be upon him, said, “It would have been.” She and I have a matter, so he left revealing and teaching it to the apparent ruling.

If the disciple of the sheikh sees that the sheikh has done something that is not required by the path of the sheikh, then the disciple has the right to alert the sheikh about that because there is a possibility that he was unaware, and he does not have the right to remain silent about it, and it is not for the sheikh if he sees that the disciple has committed obedience, given his doctrine, and it is disobedience. Considering the doctrine of the Sheikh and the Sharia’s ruling on its validity, considering the one from whom it occurred, it occurred based on ijtihad, and it is not for the perfect person, who is the Sheikh, and if he knows that that diligent person or imitator of him has made a mistake in his ijtihad, he can respond to it, so the man should not wash his wife if she dies.

And whoever holds that he should wash it, he said that it is the sheikh’s duty to know the murid who is deficient, that the mujtahid has made a mistake in that matter. This is the limit for washing it. If the murid is imitating the mujtahid, he is obliged to return to the words of his sheikh, and if the murid is the mujtahid, then it is forbidden for him to go back to it. The sheikh’s words on that issue, unless the sheikh’s words take the place of opposition in evidence, in which case the sheikh’s words are stronger than the evidence of the diligent person, so the diligent person is obligated to refer to the words of his sheikh, which is his own ijtihad, I mean his return to the preponderance of that evidence, which is the sheikh’s confirmation of the evidence he had due to the possibility that the narrator is lying. Or imagine the error on his part in his analogy, because the sheikh’s honesty in that affected him .

The disciple completely deviates from the ruling of his sheikh, so he does not have the right to slander his sheikh, and if he slandered it, it would not be accepted from him, for he is accused of apostasy while he is deficient. So how can a perfect person be purified when he is in a state of deficiency ?

If the disciple’s absence from his sheikh was due to his shyness due to a mistake he made or a period of time that occurred to him, then it is like a revocable divorce, for the ruling of the disciple’s inviolability of the sheikh remains, even if he neglects him or the sheikh abandons him as a discipline for him .