Does the Hadith of the Two Qullahs have a concept?

The questioner : The Hadith of the Two Qullahs, O Shaykh, does it not have a concept?

The Shaykh : The hadith of the two qullahs has no implied meaning (mafhum), and I want it to be interpreted and understood in light of Abu Sa'id's hadith regarding the well of Budha'ah. It appears, and Allah knows best, that the hadith of the two qullahs was a response to a specific incident with its own particular circumstances. In fact, I say, after this, that it has neither an implied meaning nor an explicit text (manut); not only does it lack an implied meaning, but it also lacks an explicit text, because its explicit text......its implied meaning: if it has not reached a state of authenticity, then if it is established for us through correct knowledge that the explicit text of this hadith is not to be acted upon, then a fortiori its implied meaning is not to be acted upon. How is that? There is scholarly disagreement regarding the definition of the two qullahs. Let us assume it refers to a cubic meter of water. If there is a lake containing two qullahs of water, and two qullahs of urine are poured into this lake, can it be said that it does not carry impurity? Of course not. Now, let us concede that instead of two qullahs, it is one qullah. Suppose that one qullah of urine fell into a lake containing two qullahs of water. Is the explicit wording of the hadith applied here? The answer was no. We now say that one qullah of urine, not two, fell into two qullahs of water. Is this water considered pure and does it carry impurity? The answer is no. In this way, we concede down to half a qullah, to a quarter of a qullah. When do we say yes, and when do we continue to say no? The criterion here is the hadith of the well. That is, if the water of the two qullahs remains a purifier, maintaining its nature and the character with which Allah created it, sent it down from the sky, and caused it to flow in rivers—even if a small or large amount of impurity falls into it, which is a relative matter—the important thing is that the water remains maintaining what we mentioned, its nature. In that case, it is said to be pure. If it departs from this known purity, as observed, then we say it has not carried the impurity. Therefore, the hadith of the two qullahs is explained by the hadith of the well, and the hadith of the well is applied to it, not the hadith of the two qullahs applied to the hadith of the well. We all know that the hadith of the well came with an authentic narration and another weak one. The authentic one and the weak one But this addition, even though its chain of narration is weak, is supported by the consensus of the Muslim community. That is, if one of the three characteristics of water changes, it then becomes ritually impure and does not carry impurity. It should be noted that the change that takes water out of being a purifier is only impurity. However, if one of its three characteristics changes due to a pure substance that fell into it, that does not take it out of its state of being a purifier. For example, flood water when it comes red; this is not its natural color, and it has changed due to the soil and mud it passes over. So the intended meaning of "change" is change due to impurity. If one of its three characteristics—color, smell, or taste—changes, the water then becomes ritually impure and does not carry impurity. I hope the answer has become clear?