Articles

The Conservation of Water in the Maliki School of Thought
Author : Dr. Mufti Sa`eid Farhan
Date Added : 04-03-2024

The Conservation of Water in the Maliki School of Thought

 

 

All perfect praise be to Allah the Lord of the Worlds. May His peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Mohammad and upon all his family and companions.

 

Verily, water is the backbone of livelihood. This is attested to in the following verse where Allah the Almighty says {What means}: "And We made from water every living thing" (Al-`Anbiyaa`, 30). Given the importance of water in human life, it has been a matter of interest for jurists of all Islamic schools of thought. Just as water is the key to life, it is also the key to worship. Purity is the means for a Muslim to perform his/her worship, and worship is the ultimate purpose of human existence.

 

The Islamic schools of thought have paid great attention to water in terms of its Sharia rulings because of its importance in the worship of the Muslim. This is in addition to paying attention to its conservation considering its importance and sensing the prophetic guidance in that regard. This guidance is clearly reflected in the situation in which the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) saw a man performing ablution and said to him: "Do not be extravagant, do not be extravagant." (Narrated by Ibn Majah).

 

Among those who have excelled in this field is the Maliki school of thought, especially in many rulings related to water. One of these is the clarification of when water becomes impure, as we will explain, God willing. There is no better evidence for this than the words of the Proof of Islam, Imam Al-Ghazali (may Allah have mercy on him), where he said in his book "Revival of the Religious Sciences" [Vol.1/P.129]: 'I wished his [i.e., Imam Shafi'i's] school of thought to be like that of Imam Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) in that water, even if it is little, does not become impure except through a noticeable change, as there is a dire necessity for it. The insistence on a specific quantity (Two Qollas) is a cause of obsessive doubts, and for this reason, it caused hardship for people. I swear, in my opinion, it is the source of hardship, recognized by those who have experienced it and pondered over it.' He concluded his words."

 

 I will mention two jurisprudential/Fiqh rulings in the Maliki school of thought regarding purification, clarifying the aspect of water conservation compared to other jurisprudential schools. Through these two rulings, the Maliki school has distinguished itself from other schools, and they have become one of its unique features.

 

First: When does water become impure?

 

The Hanafi, Shafi'i, and Hanbali schools concur that if impurity falls into a large quantity of water, the water becomes impure if any of its characteristics change. However, if its characteristics do not change, it remains pure. As for a small quantity of water, it becomes impure as soon as impurity falls into it, even if its characteristics do not change. The threshold for a large quantity of water that does not become impure according to the Shafi'i and Hanbali schools is approximately 190 liters. However, according to the Hanafi school, it is significantly more than that, roughly multiples thereof.

 

The scholars of the Maliki school have a different criterion regarding the impurity of water. They do not differentiate between large and small quantities of water. Instead, they have another criterion for determining the impurity of water, which is the alteration of any of its three characteristics. As long as none of its characteristics changes, the water remains pure even if impurity falls into it, even if it's a small quantity. If the quantity of water is less than the amount typically used for ablution (approximately one liter), there is no dislike (karaha) in using it as long as its characteristics remain unchanged, even if it becomes impure. However, if the quantity is less than that, it becomes disliked (makruh) to use it, although purification with it is still permissible.

 

This opinion clearly emphasizes the conservation of water. If we consider that the threshold for a large quantity of water in other schools of thought is around 190 liters at the minimum, as stated by Imam Al-Hattab in "Mawahib al-Jalil," then this opinion provides a more lenient approach.

 

Imam Al-Hattab stated: "If the water is impure, its abundance and scarcity are considered. If the water is abundant, more than the vessel used for ablution and bathing, then it remains pure without dislike. Otherwise, it becomes disliked because it is a small amount of water whose condition has been affected by impurity without changing it."

 

Second: Using used water for purification

 

The water used in matters of purification is the water that has been used for obligatory acts of worship, such as ablution (wudu) for someone who is in a state of minor ritual impurity (hadath) and ritual bathing (ghusl) for someone who is in a state of major ritual impurity (janabah).

 

The Hanafi, Shafi'i, and Hanbali schools of thought consider used water to be ritually pure (tahir) but not purifying (mutahir), meaning it is not suitable for performing ablution or ritual bathing. This is in contrast to the Maliki school, which permits the use of used water for purification with dislike (karaha) if other water is available. However, if no other water is available, there is no dislike in using it. Expanding the scope of permissible water—water that is inherently pure and purifying for others—undoubtedly ensures water conservation.

 

The perspective of the Maliki scholars on water is only a drop in the ocean compared to the vast treasures found in the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to give them due consideration, as they constitute our religion through which we worship and uphold the teachings of Allah the Almighty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]

Read for Author




Comments


Captcha


Warning: this window is not dedicated to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication. We are pleased to receive religious questions in the section "Send Your Question". So we apologize to readers for not answering any questions through this window of "Comments" for the sake of work organization. Thank you.




Summarized Fatawaa

Is it permissible to offer an Udhiyah on behalf of the deceased?

In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Offering an Udhiyah (sacrificial animal) on behalf of a deceased person is permissible. This is the official position of the Hanbali school (as stated in Kashshaf al-Qina’ by al-Bahuti,Vol.6/P.428) and was also upheld by the prominent Shafi'i scholar Al-’Abbadi (mentioned in Bidayat al-Muhtaj by Ibn Qadi Shuhbah,Vol. 4/P.358). It has likewise been narrated as a valid view among some Maliki and Hanafi scholars.
 
In fact, Imam Abu Dawud dedicated an entire chapter in his Sunan collection entitled, "Chapter on Sacrificing on Behalf of the Deceased." In it, he recorded a narration from Hanash, who said: "I saw 'Ali sacrificing two rams, so I asked him, 'What is this?' He replied, 'The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded me to offer a sacrifice on his behalf, so I am sacrificing on his behalf.'"
 
Imam Abu Dawud also narrated from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "O Allah, this is from You, for You, and on behalf of Muhammad and his Ummah (community). In the Name of Allah, and Allah is the Greatest," and he then slaughtered the animal.
 
The textual evidence here lies in the fact that our Master, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), offered a sacrifice on behalf of his entire community—and it is well-established that his community includes those who have already passed away.
 
Furthermore, there is an abundance of sacred texts demonstrating that the rewards of righteous deeds reach the deceased. For instance, it is permissible to fast on behalf of a deceased person who passed away with missed obligatory fasts, and it is equally permissible to perform Hajj on their behalf, both of which are firmly established in authentic Hadiths. Therefore, if the reward of fasting (which is a purely physical act of worship) and Hajj (which is a joint physical and financial act of worship) can reach the deceased, then the reward of an Udhiyah reaches them with greater reason (by way of A Fortiori argument). This is because it is a purely financial act of worship, falling under the general category of charity (Sadaqah).
 
Additionally, scholars have reached a consensus (Ijma') that the rewards of charity reach the deceased, and since the Udhiyah is inherently an act of charity, it falls under the same ruling. Consequently, based on all the aforementioned evidence, we hold the view that offering a sacrifice on behalf of the deceased is entirely permissible. And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.

What is the ruling on a Friday sermon in which the khaṭīb did not explicitly exhort the congregation to be conscious of Allah (taqwā) in both sermons, but sufficed with commanding them to obey Allah and refrain from disobeying Him?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
For the Friday sermon (khuṭbat al-Jumʿah) to be valid, certain essential pillars (arkān) must be fulfilled. Among these is the exhortation to be conscious of Allah (waṣiyyah bi-taqwā Allāh), which must be present in both sermons. Alongside this pillar, the praising of Allah (ḥamdallah) and the sending of blessings upon the Messenger of Allah ﷺ are equally required.
Shaykh al-Islām Imām Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "These three are pillars in each of the two sermons, because each sermon is independent and separate from the other." [Tuḥfat al-Muḥtāj,Vol.4/P.447]
It is not a condition that the exhortation be expressed in any specific wording, nor is it required that the word "taqwā" itself be used — such as saying "I exhort you to be conscious of Allah." Rather, this pillar is fulfilled by any expression that contains a command to obey Allah the Almighty and to abstain from what He has prohibited.
Imām al-Khaṭīb al-Sharbīnī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "The third pillar is the exhortation to taqwā... The specific wording of this exhortation is not required, according to the most correct view, because the purpose is admonition and the urging of obedience to Allah the Almighty. Therefore, any expression that conveys admonition suffices — whether long or short — such as: 'Obey Allah and be ever mindful of Him.'" [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj,Vol.1/P.550]
Accordingly, what the khaṭīb has done — by commanding obedience to Allah and forbidding disobedience to Him in both sermons — is valid and sufficient. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on someone who prays but does not fast, without a valid excuse?

Fasting is one of the pillars of Islam, and a Muslim's faith is incomplete if they neglect the obligation of fasting while being physically capable of observing it.

Is it permissible to agree with a butcher to purchase the meat of an animal after it has been slaughtered — for instance, by buying the meat of a sheep at a price determined by the weight of its meat following slaughter, at a fixed rate per kilogram? And what is the ruling if the animal is being purchased with the intention of it being an uḍḥiyyah (sacrificial offering)?

 
 
 
 
 

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is not permissible to sell livestock in the manner of pricing each kilogram of meat after slaughter at a fixed rate, because the meat within the animal prior to slaughter is unseen and unknown. This leads to jahālah (ignorance of the subject matter) and gharar (contractual uncertainty), both of which are among the invalidating factors in sales transactions.
However, it is permissible for the buyer to issue a promise to purchase the meat of the animal after slaughter at a specified price per kilogram, with the actual sale being concluded at the time of weighing the meat — at which point both the quantity of the goods and the total price become known. There is no Sharī'ah objection to this arrangement.
The jurists have stipulated that for a sale to be valid, both countervalues must be present and observable. Al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states:
"It is valid to sell a heap of grain whose total measure is unknown to both contracting parties at a rate of one sā' per dirham. This sale is valid because the subject of sale is present and observable, and ignorance of the total price is not harmful since it is known in detail — and uncertainty is thereby lifted."— [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.355]
As for the uḍḥiyyah, the 'aqīqah, and vowed blood sacrifices (al-dam al-mandhūr) — full ownership of the animal must be established prior to slaughter. It is not valid for such animals to be slaughtered while still in the ownership of the butcher. Rather, the animal must be purchased alive and then slaughtered with the intention of uḍḥiyyah or the like. And Allah Almighty knows best.