Discussion of the condemned literalism and their understanding of the hadith: (None of you should urinate in stagnant water...) and the hadith: (May Allah curse the image-makers).

The Shaykh : Muslims have fallen into a similar kind of deception in this form. This is like that, but the difference is this... the presence of internal matters in which some of the early literalists would shy away from falling, because they would bring up things that were actually amusing due to their rigidity regarding the wording of the hadith and their failure to delve into the objectives of the hadith. For example, some of them said, regarding the hadith , a clear and explicit hadith , about water that does not flow or move, that some literalist scholars stopped at the wording of the hadith and did not delve into what lies behind 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. 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 ritual impurity, and he has certainly defiled it. This causes harm to people by defiling this water, if not for the sake of defiling it. If the intended meaning of this prohibition is explicit, what is the difference between the form to which the hadith directly points and the other form where a person urinates in a vessel and then pours what is in the vessel? In terms of wording, it is not said that he urinated in stagnant water; rather, it is said that he urinated in a vessel. But the purpose and objective of the prohibition confirm that there is no difference between the form for which the text of the hadith was revealed and this other form that we are using as an example. Then we say, in the case at hand, all streams flow in channels, whether long or short, and in the end, they pour into flowing water, thereby defiling that water. So if there is a stream where 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 directly into it in this stream... whether he urinates directly or indirectly, the defilement occurs. And this is what the Lawgiver aimed at when He prohibited urinating in stagnant water. So this is old literalism, and this is modern literalism. This form is permissible because it is by the machine, and that form is forbidden because it is by hand, knowing that the machine was made by hand, and if it were not for the working hand, it would not be worth...