according to the more correct of the scholars’ two views. It is established in al-Sahīh, in a hadith narrated by ‘Ā’ishah, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about people who brought meat when it was not known whether they had pronounced Allah’s name over it. He replied:

“Pronounce Allah’s name yourselves and eat.”

As for water, it is intrinsically pure and purifying. But when impurity mixes with it and becomes perceptible in it, using that water amounts to using the foul substance itself. Its use is prohibited only because of the foul substance mixed with it, not because the water is intrinsically foul. Thus, when there is no apparent indication that a foul substance has mixed with it, entertaining such a supposition or possibility, despite the water remaining wholesome and unchanged, constitutes the hardship that Allah has excluded from our religious law and the burdens and shackles that have been lifted from us.

It is established that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb (may Allah be pleased with him) performed ablution using water from a Christian woman’s jar, despite the existence of this possibility. ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb (may Allah be pleased with him) also passed a waterspout with a companion, who called to its owner, “Is your water pure or impure?” ‘Umar said to the owner, “Do not tell him, for he is under no obligation to inquire.”

The leading scholars, including Ahmad and others, explicitly addressed this issue. They stated that if water falls on someone from a waterspout or the like, and there is no indication of impurity, he is not obliged to inquire about it; rather, doing so is disliked. If he does ask, must an answer be given? There are two views on this. Some jurists among Ahmad’s followers and others have considered such inquiry recommended, but this is a weak view.