The claim that “this alteration occurs at the point of use and therefore has no effect” draws a distinction based on a characteristic that has no bearing either linguistically or under Islamic law. If the altered water is still called water without qualification while on the body, then it is likewise called water without qualification while in the vessel. If it cannot be called water without qualification in one of these places, neither can it be so called in the other. It is well known that speakers of the language do not distinguish between one location and another in naming it.

As for Islamic law, no scriptural evidence supports this distinction, so it warrants no consideration.

In analogical reasoning, whether cases are treated alike or distinguished, it must be shown that the basis on which the ruling rests—whether for treating the cases alike or distinguishing them—is supported by revelation. Otherwise, whoever attaches rulings to characteristics, treating cases alike or distinguishing them without scriptural evidence, is devising a law of his own and introducing into religion what Allah has not authorized. Thus, anyone drawing an analogy must demonstrate the relevance of the shared characteristic on which he bases the ruling, using one of the methods that establish that this shared characteristic is the effective cause of the ruling. Likewise, regarding the characteristic used to distinguish between two cases, he must demonstrate its relevance through one of the methods recognized by Islamic law.

Furthermore, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,

“performed ablution with water from a bowl containing traces of dough.”

It is well known that this would ordinarily have inevitably altered the water, especially in