The Shaykh mentioned examples of the rigidity of the Zahiris in adhering to the wording without applying the meaning.

The Shaykh : This is a distinction that reminds us of the distinction made by some of the early Zahiris, who used to distinguish between a prohibited act and another prohibited act for no reason other than that the means differed, even if the goal was the same. For example, shaving is prohibited for the pilgrim or the one performing 'Umrah, and if he shaves during his ihram, he must pay the expiation. If he did not shave but ordered the shaving medicine—excuse me, ordered the shaving ointment, meaning this specific ointment that removes hair easily, so that as soon as you apply it to the skin, all the hair comes out—linguistically, he did not shave, but legally he did shave. Why? Because, as the common people in some countries say, "All roads lead to the mill." The goal is that a person does not remove the hair of his head by uprooting it, whether this uprooting is by razor, by medicine, or by an electric shaver, whether it is number one or number two; all of it is contrary to the Shari'ah. Yet there were those who said there is no harm in removing hair with medicine because it is not shaving. This is the old Zahiri position. Among their examples is: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade urinating in stagnant water." It is very clear that the intended meaning of this prohibition is to preserve the purity of the water or its cleanliness. So a person from the early Zahiris, who have modern followers today, said: If a person urinates in an empty vessel and then pours this urine from the vessel into the stagnant water, it is permissible. Why? Because linguistically, it is not true that he urinated in the stagnant water, right? Because he urinated in the empty vessel, so he did not urinate in the stagnant water. But the result is the same, whether he urinated directly or through the vessel, or let us say through pipes that discharge into the water; it either makes it turbid or makes it impure. Now, the means have changed, but the goal is one, as the poet said: "The causes multiplied, but death is one." So death here is a metaphorical death. "The Messenger (peace be upon him) forbade urinating in stagnant water." Why? To preserve its purity, even if it does not become impure, or if it becomes impure, it has lost its purity. So this prohibition, in its two types—whether it is purity or impurity—has occurred in one of them, even if through the vessel or through the pipe. Is it permissible to urinate in an empty vessel and then pour it into stagnant water? The answer is: It is not permissible. And even though the hadith is about urinating directly in stagnant water, it is not permissible to distinguish between this and that on the pretext that the form has changed. There are many, many examples. Perhaps I will mention the last one so that I can return to the one represented by these examples.
He (peace be upon him) said in the well-known hadith that the guardian must seek the permission of the virgin; he asks her, "So-and-so has proposed to you, what do you say?" He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: The wise Lawgiver, who created the girls and knew what He created by the nature of reality, granted them a dispensation that if they accept the proposal of the suitor, they may remain silent. So what did that Zahiri say? If the girl remains silent, it is not considered her consent; rather, she must say "I consent." If she remains silent, it is not valid. Why? Because the Messenger (peace be upon him) said: , Her silence is, excuse me, I used the wrong expression; he said "I consent," meaning she expressed her consent. This consent is usually expressed by silence. So the Messenger (peace be upon him) was satisfied with her remaining silent as an indication of her consent. If she expressed her consent and said, "I consent, my father," it is not valid. This is a wretched Zahiri position. Why? Because if the wise Lawgiver considered her silence as consent, her speech should be considered consent a fortiori. Why did the wise Lawgiver say: out of consideration for her modesty? Because it is known by fitrah that virgins are predominantly characterized by modesty. Therefore, one of the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was described by saying: , but we say, we are sorry, they used to say about us in Syria: "...", meaning this was the modesty. But today, the father says to the girl, "So-and-so is proposing to you," and she says, "No, I don't want him, and this and that, and this and that." As for remaining silent, that has become a thing of the past. The point, the point is that rigidity in adhering to words is not the methodology of the scholars and jurists; rather, the scholars look at the objectives of the words. What does it mean? Mercy toward her, compassion for her, because she is shy to say "I consent." If she were bold and had little modesty and said "I consent," that would be better than the silence which can be interpreted. The witness is that these are three examples, all of which indicate that rigidity in adhering to the wording is not the fiqh of the jurists. Now, we have fallen into a wretched Zahiri position today, which is two pictures on the wall, one hanging: one is a hand-drawn picture and the other is a photographic picture. The first is forbidden and prevents the entry of the angels, while the other is permissible and does not prevent the entry of the angels. What is the difference? The difference is that this one is by hand and that one is, I say, by the man!! Hahaha. By hand—also—hand is necessary here. And therefore, this is a wretched Zahiri position.