Some Opinions and Reasons Which Mâlikîs Opposed to Majority of the Fuqahâ on the Regard to Prufication From the Hadest

Abstract

The subject of this research is to identify and analyze the original views of Imam Mâ lik/Mâ likâ s in opposition to the majority of the fuqaha, especially in three sects, through several selected examples regarding purification from hadath,. It aims to identify and analyze the views that direct the method of decree of this sect, albeit on a limited number of examples. It is to present the reasons. At this point, the evidence and justifications of these views are included by referring to the reliable classical sources of the Mâ likis and other sects and works of the Ikhtilā f al-fuqahā' type. Fiqh issues discussed in the article; "Some Things Rarely Leaving the Body Do Not Invalidate Ablution", "The Necessity of Washing During Ablution and Ghusl by Rubbing the Parts (Tedlik)", "The Necessity of Covered Wipe During Ablution", "It is possible to Perform Tayammum on Snow", "A Person Who Can't Perform Ablution and Tayammum is Exempted from Prayer and not making up for the prayer", " No Time Limit on Mesh Upon Mest". Accordingly, the views and justifications of both Imam Mâ lik and the Mâ likis who followed him on these five issues were determined as follows: Constant urination from the anterior and posterior tract, istihadah blood, rarely passing urine, stones, pinworms, worms, etc. Contrary to the majority of fı qh scholars, these things do not invalidate ablution. In the ablution and ghusl washing process, according to the majority of fuqahâ, washing is done by running water over the place to be washed. In contrast, according to the Mâ likis, washing can only be done by rubbing the thing on which the water is poured with your hand. Regarding the amount of wiping the head that is obligatory during ablution, according to Hanafi and Shafi'i, it is obligatory/wajib to wipe a part of the head-even though the amounts are different-while in Hanbali, there are two views: wiping a part of the head and, according to the preferred view, the whole head. Mâ likis, on the other hand, think it is obligatory to wipe the entire head down to the hanging hair and the hairs on the temples. In fact, according to Imam Mâ lik, if part of the head is wiped, the prayer must be repeated. Regarding the things on which tayammum can be performed, the majority of fuqahâ- with some differences-have agreed that tayammum can be performed on clean soil and its derivatives. At the same time, Imam Mâ lik and the Mâ likî s have argued that tayammum can be performed on clean soil and its derivatives and snow. Water is used for ablution; soil is used for tayammum, etc. With some disagreements among the majority of fuqahâ about the responsibility of prayer of a person who can't find the necessary things, the opinion that that person can perform the obligatory prayer without ablution has become dominant. The opinion that he will repeat the prayer in time if possible, and if he can't find the opportunity to do this, he will make up for it later, has also gained weight. Imam Mâ lik's view, which is accepted in the sect, is that the person in this situation is exempt from prayer and its accident. Regarding the duration of wiping on the socks, according to the majority offuqahâ, the duration of wiping on the socks is accepted as one day and one night for a resident and three days and three nights for a traveler, while the view is received in the Mâ likî sect is that there is no specific duration for wiping on the socks for a traveler and a resident. When the opinions and justifications regarding the mentioned issues are examined, it is seen that Imam Mâ lik and the Mâ likî jurists who agree with his views and justify them don't act purely from rationality in the matter of purity; they generally act from the generality or absoluteness of the texts, they interpret the specific texts that contradict their views with a procedural method, and they don't use prejudice and interpretation. On the points where there is no definitive text on which they resort to language and which are open to ijtihad, they are more open to it. It has been concluded that they made decisions in this direction by taking the principles of necessity and convenience as their principles. Presenting the rulings given by the Malikis, based on several fundamental fiqh issues-albeit limited-on the subject of purification from Hades, together with their justifications, will enable us to benefit from these views in some difficult and necessary situations today.