Difference of Opinion Regarding Wudu
The source of this difference of opinion among the scholars is the letter ‘b’ in the word ‘baslariniz’ (your heads) in the verse relating to wudu. Those who accept that the letter ‘b’ indicates differentiation have considered the wiping (mesh) to be done on a part (rather than the whole). Those who consider the letter ‘b’ to be an additional letter for emphasis have extended the wiping to the whole head. The letter ‘b’ here is a symbol of the power of the created thing. This power either has an effect on the thing it is given strength or has no effect at all. If the first view is correct – which is the view of the Mu’tazilah and some others – then only a part of the head (and hand) is wiped. According to the second view, the power of the created thing is non-existent. This is the view of the Ash’arites. Therefore, the ruling is invalid. When the power of the created thing is removed, the eternal power encompasses the whole head in wiping, whereas the created power does not limit the wiping of the head to a part. According to the view that considers the letter ‘b’ at the beginning of the word to be a non-additional letter indicating emphasis, the limit of emphasis is the acquisition (the gain of the servant), as stated by the Ash’ari. This also refers to many expressions in the Book of Allah Almighty that attribute effort and action to the created being. Therefore, they have accepted that the letter ‘b’ comes as a non-additional letter, stemming from a meaning called emphasis (tekit).
Look! The Arabs, in their speech, meet the expression of non-addition with a non-additional word or phrase. With this, they intend to emphasize and when they emphasize a statement, the speaker responds accordingly. The speaker says: ‘Zayd is standing.’ Or he says: ‘Zayd is not standing.’ When someone hears this, in response to the statement ‘Zayd is standing,’ they say ‘Zayd is not standing’ or – in response to the statement ‘Zayd is not standing?’ – they say ‘Zayd is standing.’ In this way, they negate what the speaker said or negate what the speaker affirmed. The speaker affirms and says, ‘Certainly, Zayd is standing (Le-kâim)’ and when he adds the particle of emphasis to his statement to affirm standing, the responder also adds the ‘B’ particle (bi-kaim) to his response meaning ‘Certainly not standing.’ Such an expression is called non-additional because the statement can exist without it.
Second Section
However, if the speaker intends the opposite of partiality [biitiin] and brings this letter for emphasis, then this letter cannot be considered non-additional. The form appears singular, but the meaning changes. What is considered is the intention of the speaker who produces this form.
If we do not know the reason why Allah grants some of His actions the possibility of being done, we also cannot know what this is based on in us. The mentioned power is something we know from ourselves and cannot deny. This is a voluntary action. Allah has also created in us the power to resist some of the actions that appear in us, which we also know from ourselves. As an example, we can mention the trembling movement of a trembling person, which occurs involuntarily. If we do not know this, we also cannot know what this power we know from ourselves is based on. Could it be based on the existence of an effect of the created power in us? If so, then being able to have power would be the result of the created power rather than [divine] will. This difference of opinion among the theologians arises from here.
The fact that humans are responsible beings also depends on knowing that they are beings capable of power. Humans cannot fully understand with their minds where this power is based: Is it based on being able to have power, or is it based on having will, even if they are compelled in their choice? (Even if they do not know this) nevertheless, humans are held responsible to this extent due to the power they know from themselves. Therefore, Allah says: ‘Allah holds humans responsible for what He has given them.’ It cannot be said that Allah has given humans nothing; rather, He has given them something. Without any difference of opinion, we have seen that Allah has given humans the capacity to have power. ‘Allah holds a person responsible only to the extent of their power.’
This power of sufficiency and capacity (vuslat), we cannot tell to what it refers: Is it to will and power, or to something additional to them, or to something derived from them? This situation can only be learned through investigation. We also do not have the ability to show the truth in this matter. Because revealing the truth would not eliminate the difference of opinion on this subject in the world. However, through investigation, the difference of opinion among us on this subject has been eliminated. How can a difference of opinion remain on a matter that has been understood? Due to the difference in creation in others, a difference of opinion is inevitable in every matter that is understood.
You have now learned what it means to wipe the head in this path. What remains is wiping the turban and the ruling on this matter remains.
Wiping the Turban
Some of the scholars of Sharia have considered wiping the turban as permissible, while a group have not given permission for it. Those who do not consider wiping the turban as permissible say that wiping the turban is contrary to the context of the verse. Because the word ‘bas’ (head) in the verse does not refer to the turban. Covering the head is a temporary state. Those who consider wiping the turban as permissible have done so because the Prophet mentioned this in a hadith found in Sahih Muslim. The mentioned hadith is a weak hadith. Abu Amr b. Abdi’l-Ber said about the hadith, ‘Is this a defective hadith?’.
The Batin Meaning of Wiping the Turban
Regarding the ruling of wiping the turban in the Batin meaning, you should know that just as one cannot oppose the essentials with temporary things, one cannot also cause harm to them. What needs to be looked at is the reason for the emergence of this related thing. The mentioned thing is either something that is not heard or something whose absence would cause harm. In this case, one cannot remain independent of it. If it is not needed, it has no effect on eliminating the ruling of the essential; one cannot remain independent of it and if its absence causes harm, it has the same ruling as the essential and replaces it. If a part of the essential remains, that remaining part must be considered and it is necessary. The place of the remaining part of the essential is taken by this temporary thing that causes harm due to its absence. This is our view on the matter.
For this reason, in the hadith we mentioned, which some scholars of the subject consider to be defective, it is stated that wiping should be done and the turban should be wiped together. In this case, water would touch the hair (the temporary thing has taken the place of the essential). According to those who accept wiping only a part of the head, the wiping of the hair would realize the ruling of the essential. If the turban is worn for decoration, wiping it is not permissible. However, a sick person who wears a turban due to illness is not like this. No expression conflicting with the verse has come in this matter.
Explanation
Those who travel on the path of Tasavvuf may encounter a problem that harms the principle. As an example, we can give the case of a person who is detached from causes, and the effect of the cause may be attributed to him, or we can give examples such as heroism and leadership in war. We are talking about wiping the head. The head, on one hand, humbles and on the other hand, exalts. In order to make the subject we want to explain in this act of worship clear, it would be appropriate to make a comparison: If pride and arrogance prevent a person from remembering God by causing them to forget God’s greatness and majesty, then (this temporary act that causes harm) does not occur, and the greatness is removed from them. This is a necessary behavior. It is not permissible for a person to be proud in this place because it would harm the principle.
Pride and arrogance, instead of affecting a person’s self, which is inherently lowly and in need, may appear as a state that is seen by the enemy due to the characteristics of the place they are in. Because this temporary behavior does not affect the principle. In this regard, the ruling on wiping the turban is the same. Know this!
You have now learned the ruling on wiping the turban in the Batin meaning. The same interpretation also applies to wiping the turban with only a part of the hand. This means: If clinging to the cause harms the trust and assurance of the heart in Allah, then as long as it does not lead to a worse outcome of moving away from Allah, clinging to the cause and using it. If clinging to the cause does not affect the trust of the heart in Allah, then you can wipe with a part of your hand and there is no responsibility in this matter. Because not letting go of the cause (not clinging to it) is also one of the acts of the servant. The total of the hand encompasses many things in terms of meaning. Because hands have many different expressions in religiously valid acts and rulings. In this context, taking, giving, and [in terms of balance] moderation are the acts of the hands.
Allah says: “Do not let your hand be raised to your neck.” This expression metaphorically conveys stinginess. “Do not open it entirely.” This metaphorically conveys extravagance. The Quran has praised a group like this and said: “Those who spend, neither extravagantly nor stingily, but maintaining a balance between the two.” What is meant here is moderation in spending. Allah says: “Do not throw yourselves into danger.” Here, danger means stinginess. The Quran has attributed all these actions to the hands. For this reason, we said that the hands have many actions. If there were no multiplicity, there would be no parts. Because one does not break into parts.
Meshing the Head Surah
Another matter that needs to be learned in this issue is the determination of the duration of meshing the head: Is repeating the meshing a virtue or not? Some people are of the opinion that repeating is not virtuous. Some others say that there is a virtue in repetition. Repeating is considered mustahabb (recommended) in all ablution actions and in all body parts equally. However, the degree of mustahabbness of repetition varies in different body parts. There is no disagreement regarding the obligation of doing it once, provided that it is spread throughout the body.
(Our view regarding the general principle on which this opinion is based is as follows: Due to the divine vastness, there is no repetition in the universe. Therefore, we reject the use of the term ‘repetition’ for events in the universe. However, due to formal similarity, we cannot deny the existence of similar things. From this, we arrive at the definite judgment: Even if one thing is not the same as another, their movements are similar in terms of form. Our view is based on the ruling of the Sharia on this matter. If the Sharia counts similar things, we also count them. Indeed, after prayer, we say ‘Subhanallah!’ thirty-three times—
we do not reject this. In order to remove the ignorance that causes a person to hastily accept a ruling, repetition in the ablution act has been established as a means of reinforcement. According to this approach, repetition is virtuous. If it is ruled that presence before Allah has been fully realized (and ignorance has completely been removed), then repetition is not virtuous. Because the root of the word ‘fazilet’ means addition and excess. The fact that a person performing ablution does something extra is dependent on forgetfulness or lack of awareness. In other words, due to ignorance and forgetfulness, the action is repeated and therefore is not considered an addition.
Nevertheless, in our view, the correct opinion is that repetition is considered virtuous. Because, as the Sharia, which clarifies the ruling, states, it is light. There are expressions in the Book and the Sunnah that liken the light of Allah to the lamp in a lantern. The entire verse can be examined. In another verse, Allah says, “Light upon light.” That is, the expression “light upon light” is mentioned. This situation is similar to bringing two or three proofs for a single piece of evidence. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Performing ablution while already in a state of ablution is light upon light.” There is no difference between performing ablution while already in a state of ablution and bringing the second water over the first water in ablution. Repeating an action by a person ensures the repetition of the reward and manifestation given to the person. Therefore, the essential thing in all parts of ablution is the repetition of washing. The head, two ears, and two feet are different. We have touched upon the necessary matters regarding this issue.
Bâb
Washing Two Ears with New Water
People have had differing opinions regarding the renewal of water when meshing two ears. Some scholars consider it a sunnah, while others consider it a farz (obligation). Some scholars state that the renewal of water is necessary when meshing the ears, while others believe that the renewal of water is not necessary. Are the two ears washed independently, or together with the head? Or are they washed together with the face? Are the front parts of the ears washed with the face, and the back parts with the head? Each group has adopted one of these forms.
Vasıl
The Inner Ruling of Meshing the Ears
The inner ruling of meshing the ears is as follows: The ear is an independent organ that requires the renewal of water during cleansing. Therefore, the person performing ablution meshes their ear in order to hear the best word, which is necessary. In the best word, there is a ranking. Something is good, something is better, and the best is to mention Allah through the Quran. In this way, a person unites two beauties. Each verse only shows Allah, and there is no zikr (mentioning) of Allah that is superior to hearing the zikr of Allah from the Quran. This is what we mean when we say mentioning Allah through the Quran.
Not every verse of the Quran includes the mention of Allah. Because in addition to containing legal rulings, there are also expressions that tell the stories of Pharaohs, their words, and their disbelief. Nevertheless, reading it or listening to someone reading it carries great reward, since it is the Quran. However, when considering the gradations between verses, the verses in which Allah is mentioned are more beautiful and more complete than the verses that describe a disbelieving person saying inappropriate things about Allah.
Evaluations regarding the front and back of the ear are, [in the interior], the apparent, hidden, secret, open, known, and unknown parts of this mention in the Quran. Therefore, surrender the ambiguous words about Allah to Allah. These are the back part of the ear in inner interpretation. When you hear such verses with your ear, you leave it to Allah to know what He intended by them. The verses in the Quran whose meanings are known -such as the clear verses about Allah and the entities that indicate Him- are considered the front part of the ear in inner interpretation. The meaning of what Allah intended is known through these verses. In this way, judgment is realized according to the situation to which knowledge is related. You also, in this explanation…