and he cited the hadith as evidence. How, then, could he have narrated a version of it making that distinction?

The hadith concerning two qullahs, if authentically reported from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, also supports this. His statement,

“When water reaches two qullahs (large water jars), it does not carry impurity”—or, in another wording, “nothing renders it impure”—

indicates that what renders water impure is its carrying impurity. Whenever the impurity is completely absorbed into the water, it is no longer carried by it. Thus neither the explicit wording of the hadith nor its underlying rationale indicates that.

As for the specific mention of two qullahs, they had asked him about water in the wilderness frequented by wild beasts and other animals. Such water is ordinarily abundant. He therefore explained, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that water of this kind does not ordinarily contain impurity, unlike a small quantity, which may or may not carry impurity. An abundance of water helps transform the impurity into the water’s own nature. An inferred implication need not apply universally: the fact that two qullahs do not carry impurity does not mean that anything less must invariably carry it. Moreover, this quantity was specified in response to people asking about particular bodies of water. It may have been specified because those waters were abundant and did not carry impurity. Two qullahs constitute a large quantity, but it does not follow that only two qullahs can constitute a large quantity.

Otherwise, if this were a dividing line between the lawful and the unlawful, he would have stated it without waiting to be asked. Furthermore, thresholds established by Islamic law are known quantities, such as the zakat thresholds for gold and crops subject to the tithe, and the like. Yet the volume of water into which impurity falls can be known only by estimation; ordinarily, it cannot be measured. How, then, could a distinction be drawn between