But the point here is that the distinction between the transformation of substances into something else and a change in their attributes while their identity and essence remain is firmly established in people’s minds.

For this reason, they all agree that an impure substance does not become pure merely through a change in its attributes. Thus, if the attributes of blood, carrion, pork or wine change—for example, if blood or wine solidifies, or the fat of carrion or pigs melts, and so forth—the prohibition remains in force, by their unanimous agreement.

If, however, the substance itself is transformed—for example, into salt, ashes or the like—there is a well-known disagreement. The majority hold that it becomes pure through transformation. This is the position of most adherents of reasoned opinion and literalism, and one of the two positions within the schools of Mālik and Ahmad. They agree that wine which turns into vinegar through the action of Allah Most High becomes pure.

As for the second approach—showing that what he has mentioned is not a sound proof of the temporal origination of bodies—the objector says:

His statement, “If that which is beginningless possesses a certain attribute, it cannot cease to possess it,” is ambiguous. He may mean that if it possesses an attribute inseparable from its essence, it cannot cease to possess it.

Or he may mean that it enters a state that occurs to it, whether or not that kind of state is inseparable from its essence, such as acting and doing, whether or not this is called motion—for example, coming