Speaking on when water becomes ritually impure.

The Shaykh : For example, in Hanafi jurisprudence, what is the ruling regarding pure, purifying water if impurity falls into it? The Hanafis themselves were divided on this. The view that settled among the later scholars, with the intention of establishing a clear criterion for the people, was that if the water is ten by ten cubits, yes, and is of such depth that if you stir it at this edge, the water on the other side does not move. This is theoretical talk, very difficult, if not impossible to apply. Why? Because they say the issue is geometric. If the pool is square, ten by ten, fine. But what if the pool is octagonal, or hexagonal, or has more sides than that shape? By Allah, perhaps a jurist like the mufti we had in Sham, the one before this one, named Abu al-Yusr 'Abidin—they used to say he was a doctor, a real doctor, and a Hanafi jurist. I want to say that if he were a Hanafi jurist and an excellent engineer, and we placed him before a lake with many sides, he would not be able to understand the legal ruling he studied in the books of jurisprudence, which is that if the water is ten by ten, it requires precise calculations, and then it requires calculating the depth. The surface might be very small, but the depth we lost at the bottom, going down to the bottom and so on, makes it completely impractical. For this reason, the early jurists did not entangle themselves in this condition. What did they say? If the water is much, it can bear the impurity, and if it is little, it cannot bear the impurity. The later scholars also felt that this was not a criterion, because it became a vague issue. One person might see this as much water, in which case it is pure, while another might see it as little, in which case it is impure. So they restricted it to ten by ten, and they did not succeed, nor did they achieve success. Let us return to the hadith. This is the school of thought that aligns with fitrah (the innate natural disposition) and does not conflict with it. Even al-Ghazali in *Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din*, and he was a Shafi'i in school, and his school is based on the principle that if the water is two qullahs, it does not bear impurity, said: "I wished that the school of Imam al-Shafi'i were based on this hadith." Why? Because the problem of the two qullahs is exactly the same as the problem of the pool, and this is actually a long-tailed discussion. I wanted for the person, when he studies these opinions, that he might choose, for example, the opinion of Imam al-Shafi'i, but when he tries to apply it practically, he finds that it is not successful. He is then forced to adopt the school of the people of Madinah, the school that al-Ghazali, the Shafi'i known for his zeal for his Shafi'i school, wished Imam al-Shafi'i had followed, namely what the people of Madinah were upon. May Allah reward you. The point of all this is that studying the two principles, the principle of hadith and the principle of jurisprudence, theoretically is not sufficient. They must be studied practically. There, as they say today, some of these rules will crystallize for him in a very clear form, and he will derive from them a rule clearer than what was said, which is a branch of what was said. What we are discussing is of this nature. And we ask Allah, Mighty and Majestic, to guide us all to what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was upon and what our righteous predecessors were upon. In truth, based on my knowledge of the general distance of the later generations from the methodology of the Salaf (the earliest generations), some of the people of the Sunnah and hadith among us, when they did not master this topic, fell into bid'ah (religious innovation) without realizing it. I will give you a practical example now. Imam al-Shatibi in *al-I'tisam*, and it is a good book, tells his story with the majority who lived among him and how they opposed him because he was reviving the Sunnah. Among the things he said was that he appointed an imam. He said, "I studied the matter and found that my people gather for supplication after the prayer. This is still the case in Damascus, and perhaps in some mosques here. When the prayer is finished, he turns to the congregation and supplicates, and the congregation says 'Ameen.' This was the situation. But it began to diminish greatly in many mosques here and there. In any case, al-Shatibi lived in this environment. He debated with himself: should I follow them or oppose them? It became more probable for him that he should follow the Sunnah. So he would pray with them, whether it was Fajr (the dawn prayer) or 'Asr (the afternoon prayer), turn to them, and recite tasbih and supplicate with what is facilitated according to the Sunnah, and not gather the people for collective supplication. I read an article in the Salafi University magazine published in Banaras This is the school of thought that aligns with the fitrah (the innate natural disposition) and does not conflict with it. Even al-Ghazali, in *Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din*, and although he was a Shafi'i in his madhhab (school of jurisprudence), noted that this school is based on the hadith: "If water reaches two qullahs, it does not carry impurity." He said: "I wished that the madhhab of Imam al-Shafi'i were based on this hadith." Why? Because the problem of the two qullahs is exactly the same as the problem of the pool, and this is actually a long-drawn-out issue. I wanted to say that when a person studies these opinions, he might choose, for example, the opinion of Imam al-Shafi'i, but then he stands practically facing the two qullahs: what about the impurity that fell into the two qullahs? The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said it does not carry filth. But what if the impurity was more than two qullahs twice? Does it carry impurity? No. So what is the impurity that must fall into the two qullahs for the water in the two qullahs to remain pure and purifying? It must be a light impurity. Therefore, the answer regarding the hadith of the two qullahs is two-fold among the scholars who adopted the hadith. The first is the hadith... Some of them said that the hadith of the two vessels is weak, and we do not agree with them in this second category. He said that this was a response to an incident that had occurred, where it was known that the impurity that had fallen into those two vessels was not of such a magnitude that it would change the taste, color, or smell. Therefore, they said that the hadith of the two vessels is not suitable to be a general rule; the rule is the hadith My point is that the one who has studied these three schools and theoretically chosen the school of the two qullahs, when he comes to apply it practically, finds that it is not successful. He is then forced to adopt the school of the people of Madinah, the school that al-Ghazali, the Shafi'i, who is known for his strong adherence to the Shafi'i school, wished the school of Imam al-Shafi'i had been, in accordance with the practice of the people of Madinah. May Allah reward you. The point of all this is that studying the two foundations—Usul al-Hadith and Usul al-Fiqh—on a theoretical level is not sufficient; they must be studied practically. It is there that, as they say today, some of these rules will become very clear to him, and a rule will emerge from them that is clearer than what was said, being a branch of what was said. What we are discussing is of this nature. We ask Allah (Mighty and Majestic) to guide us all to what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was upon and what our righteous predecessors were upon. In truth, because of my knowledge of the general distance of the later generations from the methodology of the Salaf, and because some of the people of the Sunnah and Hadith among us did not master this subject, they fell into religious innovation without realizing it. I will give you a practical example now. Imam al-Shatibi, in *Al-I'tisam*—and it is a fine book—narrates his story with the majority who lived among him and how they opposed him because he was reviving the Sunnah. Among the things he says is that he appointed an imam and said, "I studied the matter and found that my people gather for supplication after the prayer." This is still the case in Damascus, and perhaps here in some mosques: when the prayer is finished, he turns to the congregation and supplicates, and the congregation says, "Ameen." That was the situation, but it has started to diminish completely in many mosques here and there. In any case, al-Shatibi lived in this environment and debated with himself: should I follow them or oppose them? It became more likely to him that he should follow the Sunnah, so he would pray with them. If it was the time of Fajr or 'Asr, he would turn to them and recite the remembrance of Allah and supplicate with what is facilitated according to the Sunnah, and he would not gather the people for supplication as a group. I read an article in the *Al-Jami'ah al-Salafiyyah* magazine, which is published in Banaras.

The questioner : India

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : India, yes

The Shaykh : India, yes. An article by one of the shaykhs, scholars of hadith, says that supplication as a group and raising the hands after the prayer is a recommended practice. Where did he take this recommended practice from? From the generality of the texts. Oh, my brother, study the life of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his prayer. How many thousand prayers did he pray with his Companions (may Allah be pleased with them)? It is never narrated from him that he raised his hand, even if he was alone, let alone that he would face the congregation and supplicate while they say "Ameen." There is absolutely nothing of this.