their respective schools—their evidence is the apparent meaning of the Quran.

If their opponents concede that the entire prescribed area must be wiped in tayammum, then this applies all the more to wiping in ablution, both in wording and in meaning. It cannot be argued that complete coverage is obligatory in tayammum because it replaces washing the face, which must be washed entirely. A substitute takes the place of what it replaces in its legal ruling, not in its form. Thus, wiping over leather socks replaces washing the feet, yet complete coverage is not obligatory when wiping them, although it is obligatory when washing the feet. Their position is also supported by the widely transmitted Sunnah established through the practice of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

As for the hadith of al-Mughīra ibn Shuʿba, Ahmad and other jurists versed in hadith permit wiping over the turban, on the basis of the authentic, established hadiths concerning this. In Ahmad’s view, if a person wipes his forelock and completes the remainder by wiping over his turban, this unquestionably suffices. As for Mālik, his only answer to the hadith is to interpret it as a case in which the Prophet had an excuse that prevented him from uncovering his head, and therefore performed tayammum over the turban because of that excuse.

Whoever follows the Sunnah by wiping his forelock and turban has fulfilled the requirement when there is an excuse, without disagreement; according to the three, this also suffices without an excuse. Wiping the head once is sufficient by agreement, just as purifying each of the other limbs once is sufficient.

They differed over whether wiping the head three times is recommended. The majority hold that it is not recommended, including Mālik, Abū Hanīfa, and Ahmad according to the well-known position reported from him.