Discussion of the condemned literalism and their understanding of the hadith: (None of you should urinate in standing water that does not flow)

The Shaykh : Muslims have fallen into such circumvention. One example is this case, which is similar to that one, but the difference is that this one... exists in it... and internal matters that some of the old literalists would be ashamed to fall into. They used to bring up things that were actually laughable due to their rigidity with the wording of the hadith and their lack of depth in understanding the objectives of the hadith. For example, some of them said regarding the hadith: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade urinating in stagnant water." This is a clear and explicit hadith: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade urinating in stagnant water" that does not flow or move. Some literalist scholars stopped at the wording of the hadith and did not delve into what lies beyond it. They said: If a man urinates in a vessel and then pours what is in the vessel into stagnant water, it is permissible. This is literalism! But the literalism of the present people is more severe than this. "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade urinating in stagnant water." Why? Everyone understands that the purpose of this prohibition is to preserve the purity and cleanliness of the water. If a person urinates in it, he exposes it to impurity, and he has certainly contaminated it. This harms people because of the contamination of this water, if not because of its contamination. If this is the intended meaning of this prohibition, what is the difference between the case to which the hadith directly addresses and the other case where a person urinates in a vessel and then tips this urine from the vessel into another vessel? In terms of wording, one cannot say: he urinated in stagnant water; rather, one says: he urinated in a vessel. But the purpose and objective of the prohibition confirm that there is no difference between the case for which the text of the hadith was revealed and this other case that we are illustrating.
Then we say in the Levant: all the sewers flow through channels, whether long or short, and in the end they discharge into flowing water, thereby contaminating this water. If there is a channel in which a person urinates or defecates, and then there is a lake with stagnant water; whether he comes and stands on the edge of the lake and urinates in it directly, or through this channel, as they say: "All roads lead to the mill"; whether he urinates directly or through the channel, the contamination occurs. This is what the Lawgiver aimed at when He forbade urinating in stagnant water.
So this is old literalism and this is modern literalism. This case is permissible because it is by machine, and that case is forbidden because it is by hand; knowing that the machine was made by hand, and without the working hand, this case would not have been...