They differ in the ability to do that and the place of that hand. So whoever removes it by means of oppression, and who removes it with politics and encouragement, as a person wipes with his hand the head of an orphan, forcing it to break it with kindness and tenderness.

[ The power that occurs does it have an effect on the potential ]

And since the reason for this disagreement among scholars is the presence of the ba in his saying, With your heads. So whoever makes it to separate some of the wiping, and whoever makes it extra for emphasis in wiping is wiping all over the head. And if it does not have an effect on the predetermined in any way, then it is superfluous, as Al-Ash ari says, and its ruling is lost. From his book by adding earning and work to the creature, so they made its addition to a meaning called affirmation

[ The Arabs in her speech correspond to the excess with the excess ]

Do you not see the Arabs meeting the plus with the plus in her words, wanting with that emphasis and answering with it the sayer, if he confirms his saying, the sayer says that Zayd is standing, or he says what has been added is existing, so the listener says in response that Zaid is standing what has been added and in an answer that Zaid is standing then what the sayer denies or denies What the narrator affirmed. If the narrator confirms his affirmation and says, Zayd is standing. Then he inserts the lam to confirm the affirmation of the standing. The respondent inserts the ba into the opposite of the lam, to confirm the negation of what the narrator has affirmed. He says what is added to the standing, and it is called such as this plus because the speech is independent of it. The intent to diverge was not superfluous with that letter in one sentence and the image is one in appearance, but they differ in meaning and consideration.

[ The origin of the disagreement between the observers in the creation of actions ]

If we are ignorant of the meaning for which the Almighty created us to be able to do some actions, we find that from our souls and we do not deny it, and it is the voluntary movement, just as the Almighty made in us the barrier from some of the actions that appear in us, and we find that from our souls as the movement of the trembling in which there is no choice for the trembling. From our souls, is it due to the ability that occurs in us to have an effect on that eye that exists about our ability or the created will in us, so that empowerment is the effect of the will, not the effect of the ability that occurs from here. Himself and does not realize with his mind why is that mastery due to him being able or because he is free and if he is forced to choose him, but with that degree of mastery that he finds from himself, it is correct to be obligated and that is why God Almighty said that God does not burden a soul except what He has given it He has given it an existential command and it is not said He gave it Nothing, and we did not see anything that He gave her without disagreement except for the power that is her power. God does not burden a soul beyond its power.

[ Every theoretical issue must be disputed due to the difference in the nature of the opinion ]

He does not know why this mastery and this expansiveness is due to one of them, I mean the will or the ability, or to something that is in excess of them or them. He does not know that except by revealing and it is not possible for us to reveal the truth in this matter because that does not remove the dispute from the world about it, just as the dispute in it has been raised to us by revealing and how it is raised. The dispute is from the scholar, and the issue is reasonable, and every reasonable issue must be disputed due to the difference in the nature of the view.

( Received in wiping over the turban )

Among the Sharia scholars who permitted wiping over the turban and forbade a group from that, the one who prevented it because it is contrary to the meaning of the verse, it is not understood from the head the turban, because covering the head is an accidental matter, and this is permissible because the news contained in Muslim is a hadith in which he spoke and Abu Omar bin Abd al-Branah said that it has an effect ?

( The wiping of the turban on the inside has arrived )

As for the ruling on wiping over the turban inwardly, then know that incidental matters do not contradict the principles and do not detract from them. What you should look at is what is the reason for the emergence of that accident, and it is not devoid of it. Either it is something that is indispensable, or it is something that causes harm by its loss, so it is not indispensable. A ruling for him is to remove the rule of the original, and if he does not dispense with it and damage occurs by its loss, then his ruling is the rule of the original and its replacement, and if a part of the original remains, it should be taken into account that part that remains and must be taken into account, and what remains of the original remains on his behalf. That is why it was mentioned in the hadith that we mentioned that it is faulty according to some scholars in this regard that wiping fell on the forelock and the turban together, so the water touched the hair