Among those who maintain that impurity can only be removed with water, some say that this is a purely devotional requirement. That is not so. The Lawgiver commanded the use of water in particular cases because it was the only practicable means: using beverages from which Muslims benefit to remove impurity would waste them, while removing it with solid materials was impracticable—as in washing garments, vessels, and the ground with water. It is well known that even if they had possessed rosewater, vinegar, or similar substances, he would not have ordered them to waste them, let alone when they had none.

Others say that water possesses a fineness that other liquids lack, so they cannot be treated as equivalent to it. That is not so either. Vinegar, rosewater, and other liquids remove impurity from vessels as effectively as water, or even more effectively. Transformation is more effective at eliminating impurity than washing with water, since washing with water may leave some of the impurity’s colour, which is then excused. As the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said:

“Water is sufficient for you, and its remaining trace will not harm you.”

Substances other than water can remove the taste, colour, and smell.

Others say that analogical reasoning would dictate that impurity cannot be removed with water, because the water itself becomes impure upon contact. However, a concession was granted to use water because of need. They thus regard removal with water as an instance of juristic preference upon which no analogy may be based. Both premises are invalid. Removing impurity with water does not run contrary to analogical reasoning. Rather, analogical reasoning dictates that when a ruling is established on account of a cause, it ceases when that cause ceases.

Their claim that water becomes impure upon contact is disputed, and those who concede it distinguish between incoming water