Explanation of the author's statement: "If it changes without mixing, such as with a piece of camphor or oil, or with wet or hot salt that is impure, it is disliked"

The Shaykh : Then he said, if it is mixed "If it changes without being mixed with another substance, such as a piece of camphor or oil, or with wet or hot salt, or with something impure, it is disliked". If water changes due to something that does not mix with it, such as a piece of camphor—camphor is a type of fragrance that comes in pieces and also in a fine, soft powder, not in these pieces—when these pieces are placed in water, the water changes; its smell and taste change, but they do not mix with it, meaning they do not blend in and swirl. If it changes in this way, it remains purifying, but it is disliked. It is purifying, but it is disliked. How can it be purifying when it has changed? They said that this change is not due to mixing, but due to proximity. So the water here did not change because these pieces mixed with it, but because they were next to it. Therefore, the change here is by proximity, not by mixing, so it remains purifying. It remains purifying. Good. Why is it disliked? They say that some scholars held that it becomes pure but not purifying, meaning they consider this change to strip it of its purifying quality. Note that the reasoning here is now based on what? On disagreement. The reasoning is based on disagreement. This means that if a questioner asked you, you would now say that if it changes due to the action of a mixing agent, it is disliked, meaning it is purifying and not merely pure. It is purifying; it removes impurities and lifts states of ritual impurity. If it is purifying, why did you dislike it? He said that the scholars disagreed on it, and some held that in this state it is pure but not purifying. So because of this disagreement, we said it is disliked. They reasoned based on disagreement, but the correct view is that reasoning based on disagreement is defective and does not hold. Reasoning based on disagreement is defective, and the meaning of defective is sick. Reasoning based on disagreement in the context of disagreement is not valid, because if we said that, we would dislike many issues in the chapters of knowledge, because disagreement in matters of knowledge is abundant, not little; it is very abundant. And we would say that whenever we find disagreement in an issue, it is disliked. Then many issues in knowledge would be disliked due to the existence of disagreement in them, and this is not possible. So reasoning based on disagreement is not a Shari'ah cause, and it is not accepted. And we do not say "to avoid disagreement," because avoiding disagreement is the meaning of reasoning based on disagreement. Rather, we say that if this disagreement has a share of consideration and the evidence allows for it, then we dislike it, not because there is disagreement in it, but because the evidence allows for it. So leaving it is in the category of . But if it is a disagreement that has no share of consideration, then we cannot reason with it regarding issues and derive a ruling from it:
"Not every disagreement is considered *** except a disagreement that has a share of consideration". Not every disagreement is considered. The conclusion is that this is a useful rule from the rules of the principles of jurisprudence: reasoning based on disagreement is defective and is not accepted. Why? Because the evidence is not established except by proof. Who told us that considering disagreement is a Shari'ah proof by which rulings are established, and it is said that this is disliked or not disliked? Who said that? Then if we accepted it, it would follow that we would dislike many issues of knowledge, because disagreement in the issues of knowledge is abundant, is it not? So what do we say when a disputed issue comes up? We say that if this disagreement is allowed by the evidence and its weakness is not that extreme weakness, then we can say here that it is better to leave this thing, or perhaps we would be bold and say that it is disliked, not because so-and-so said it and disagreed, but because the evidence allows for this view. So taking it is from the category of . Okay, this is one. "or oil". It changes without mixing, such as oil. How does oil change? Do you know oil? If a person puts oil in water and the water changes because of it, it does not deprive it of its purifying quality; it remains pure. Why? Because oil does not mix with water; you find it floating on top, and it cannot mix with it. So its change is a change by proximity, not a change by mixing. For that reason, it does not deprive it of its purifying quality, even if it was hot, or if the water was hot, or with the oil. And his saying...