and that wash-water is impure before the affected place becomes pure. Once the place has become pure, there are three views concerning the wash-water: is it pure, purifying, or impure?

Abū Hanīfah considered this point and held that water becomes impure when impurity falls into it, even though it removes impurity from other things, for the reason we have explained.

If, then, the revealed texts and the majority view establish that water in large quantities does not become impure merely because impurity falls into it—as indicated by the Prophet’s statements, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,

“Water is purifying; nothing renders it impure,”

and,

“When water reaches two qullahs, it does not bear impurity”—

then, if water is purifying and other things are purified with it, we know that it does not become impure through contact. For if such contact rendered it impure, it would become impure upon contact whenever impurity was poured into it. Thus, impurity falling into water does not render it impure. However, if the actual substance of the impurity remains, it renders the water unlawful; if it undergoes transformation, it ceases to exist.

This shows that impurity undergoing transformation within water through contact with it does not render the water impure, even though the impurity has not been removed as it is removed from the affected place. Anyone who says that water repels impurity from itself just as it removes it from other things contradicts what is observable. This same principle applies to all other liquids, whether beverages or otherwise.

Second: At most, this argument entails that impurity can be removed with a liquid. This is one of the two positions within the schools of Ahmad and Mālik, as well as the position of Abū Hanīfah and others. Ahmad regarded it as a necessary consequence of the position of anyone who says that a liquid does not become impure