it changes, as held by some of the jurists of the Hijaz and Iraq, the jurists of hadith, and others, including Mālik and his followers and those among the followers of al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad who agreed with them. This is the approach adopted by Judge Abū Yaʿlā ibn Judge Abī Khāzim, even though he held that a small quantity of water becomes impure through contact with an impurity.

Ibn ʿAqīl, Ibn al-Munā, Ibn al-Muzaffar, Ibn al-Jawzī, Abū Nasr, and other followers of Ahmad defended the view that water becomes impure only if it changes, in accordance with the opinion transmitted from Ahmad that agrees with the scholars of Medina. This was also the view of Abū al-Mahāsin al-Rūyānī and other followers of al-Shāfiʿī.

Al-Ghazālī said: “I wish al-Shāfiʿī’s position on water had been the same as Mālik’s.”

The statements of Ahmad and others accord with this view. Ahmad was asked on what basis water is deemed impure when an impurity falls into it and changes its taste or colour, given that the hadith reported on this subject, which states:

“Water is pure and purifying; nothing renders it impure except that which changes its colour, taste, or smell,”

is weak. He replied that Allah has forbidden carrion, blood, and pork. Thus, if the taste of blood, carrion, or pork becomes apparent in the water, anyone using that water is using these foul substances. Had he considered analogical reasoning to require an unrestricted prohibition, he would not have confined the prohibition to cases involving the use of the impurity itself.

In short, this view is correct. Allah has forbidden foul substances such as blood, carrion, pork, and the like. When these fall into water or another substance and are entirely absorbed into it, no blood, carrion, or pork remains