Rafed English

The mash on the turban ('imama)

Our scholars have stated that wiping on the turban is not allowed. This is the view of al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa and Malik. Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal, Abu Thawr, al-Qasim b. Salam, al-Awzai and al-Thawri opposed this. The difference is reported from others too. They have stated that it is allowed by drawing an analogy with the [mash on] slippers and acting according to the hadith of al-Mughira b. Shu'ba that the Prophet of God (P) wiped on his forelock and on his turban. Other chains of transmission [state] that he had wiped on his turban, the forelock is not mentioned.

The book of God, the Almighty and Glorious, "and wipe on your heads" and the practice of His Prophet of wiping on his (P) forelock are sufficient for us. This is certain, it does not require elucidation. The consensus on it has been formed both by it being narrated and through direct investigation (muhassal), thanks be to God, the Lord of the Universe.

There is no proof for them in drawing an analogy with the slippers for the religion of God cannot be known by analogy. Moreover, the mash on the slippers is forbidden, as you know.

As for the hadith of al-Mughira, it is invalid, Muslim has reported it. Concerning the hadith, Abu 'Umar Ibn 'Abd al-Barr has stated that it is a weak tradition. I say: Perhaps Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i and Malik did not attach importance to it as they deemed it to be weak too.

Al-Mughira had a habit of deception, misleading people, inconsistency and trickery. He was immersed in diseases, submersed in lust and [indulged in] outbursts of treachery and transgression of the limits [imposed] whenever he liked and disliked especially with those enemies of the family of Muhammad (P) who follow them and those friends of God and His Prophet who had enmity towards them.

He became a Muslim to spare his life from the Banu Malik and that was because he came with a group of their notables to Ceaser when he was in Alexandria. The Malikis succeeded in getting a gift from the king whereas he did not. He was overcome with greed and jealousy towards them so he invited them for drinks and they agreed to accompany him. He made them drink until it affected their senses. He turned against them and killed all of them, and he appropriated their wealth. Since he did not feel safe from [the vengeance of] their families he joined Islam. He came to the Prophet of God (S.A.W.) when he was in Medina. He entered to see him and testified that there was no god but Allah and that Muhammad was the Prophet of God. As was his practise with the believers and hypocrites, the Prophet accepted his Islam. When the property of the Banu Malik was presented to him, he refused it. It was proper for him to accept it since it was from those who had waged war and they had seized it unlawfully, [property] which Allah, the most High, did not forbid [him to take]. However, since that was taken by deceit, his sanctity did not allow him to accept it, so he made his (al-Mughira's) property copious for him.

This was his Islam, it gives you a picture of his principles and shrewdness. In a famous story of the events of the year 17 A.H., Abu Bakra - he was amongst the prominent companions - and his companions testified against him for acts which would require punishment. How can we compare the wise Qur'an with his traditions, O people of understanding?

Adapted from: "Questions on Jurisprudence" by: "Abdul Hussein Shareefaldin Al-Musawi"

Share this article

Comments 0

Your comment

Comment description

Latest Post

Most Reviews