nor its colour or smell: such liquids do not become impure. The jurists have differed on this question: does legal analogy require water to become impure upon contact with impurity, except where evidence establishes an exception, or does it require that water remain pure unless its properties change? There are two views: the first is that of the scholars of Iraq, and the second that of the scholars of the Hijaz. Among hadith jurists, some favour the former, while others favour the latter; these latter are the scholars of the Hijaz. This is the correct view, supported by foundational principles, scriptural texts, and reason. Allah has permitted wholesome things and forbidden foul things. Wholesomeness and foulness depend on qualities inherent in a thing; as long as it remains unchanged, it remains wholesome, and there is no basis for prohibiting it. Thus, if a drop of wine fell into a container, someone who drank from it would not be flogged.

Those who concede that legal analogy requires water to become impure upon contact with impurity draw several distinctions between contact occurring in the course of removing impurity and contact in other circumstances.

Some say: “Here, the water is applied to the impurity, whereas there, the impurity enters the water.” This is a weak argument, for if water were poured into an impure container, they would regard it as becoming impure.

Others say: “When water is being applied for purification, whether to remove physical impurity or a state of ritual impurity, it is not deemed impure or classified as used water until it separates from what is being purified. Before that separation, it is neither used nor impure.” This merely states a legal position; it provides no proof.