Allah, for it is preserved, as He, Exalted, says:

“Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will preserve it.”

This demonstrates the weakness of that view. Moreover, the view permitting its use accords with the general scope of both the wording and its underlying meaning, and is supported by the apparent meanings of the texts and their underlying rationales. Linguistically, the term “water” encompasses the disputed cases just as it encompasses those on which there is consensus. The characteristics of both are of the same kind, so equivalent cases must be treated alike.

Furthermore, the position of those who prohibit its use entails departing from the basic principle and setting aside scriptural evidence because of a stronger countervailing consideration. For, according to them, analogy dictates that no altered water may be used either to purify oneself from ritual impurity or to remove physical impurity. Yet exceptions are made for water whose alteration is part of its natural constitution, and water altered by substances from which it is difficult to protect it, on account of hardship and difficulty. This would thus be a case of juristic preference for which analogy is set aside. Such conflict between proofs runs contrary to the basic presumption.

According to the first view, however, this would be an established concession consistent with analogy, without any conflict between the proofs of Islamic law. This position is therefore stronger.