Explanation of the author's statement: "And if it changes due to its prolonged stay, or due to what makes it difficult to protect the water from, such as what grows in it or the leaves of trees, or due to the proximity of carrion, or if it is heated by the sun or by a pure substance..."

The Shaykh : The author said: "And if it changes due to its prolonged stay, or due to what makes it difficult to protect the water from, such as what grows in it or the leaves of trees, or due to the proximity of carrion, or if it is heated by the sun or by a pure substance, it is not disliked." This covers several issues. If it changes due to its prolonged stay, meaning its long duration, it does not cause harm. How does it change due to its prolonged stay? It is called *sari* among us; here we call it *sari*. It changes due to its long stay, but this does not cause harm because it did not change due to something that occurred in it... it changed by itself. Therefore, this does not cause harm and is not disliked. Likewise, if it changes due to its accumulation: "or due to what makes it difficult to protect the water from, such as what grows in it or the leaves of trees". What makes it difficult to protect the water from, such as what grows in it, like this pool where grass has grown. Is this possible or not? Or algae has grown in it. Do you know algae? This water, or the leaves of trees. If there were trees around it and their leaves fell into this water, changing it, it remains purifying and not disliked, even if it has a smell without a taste, or even if it has a taste and color. That is, if its color, taste, and smell changed due to these leaves... Why do they say it is due to the difficulty of guarding against it? Can anyone prevent the trees from having their leaves blown by the wind and falling in this place? No one can. Or can anyone prevent this water from changing due to its prolonged stay? It is not possible. If we were to tell people that the water is pure but not purifying, we would have made things difficult for them. Therefore, we say that if the taste, color, and smell of the water change due to what makes it difficult to protect the water from, it is purifying and not disliked. Now, if it changed because a person walked in the pool with his feet and splashed around until the water became very muddy and polluted, it is purifying and not disliked because it is difficult to prevent it from changing due to its prolonged stay. Likewise, it changes due to the proximity of carrion. This pool has a lot of carrion around it; twenty sheep died from all sides, and it has a very foul smell due to the carcasses. It changed. The author says that it is purifying and not disliked, but it has only the smell. If you take it in your hand and smell it, its smell is foul. The author says that this is purifying. Why? Because it is due to proximity, not mixing. It is strange that some scholars have reported the consensus of the scholars that it does not become impure by changing due to the proximity of carrion. Perhaps evidence can be cited from some wordings of the hadith: on the view that this hadith is authentic, the word "occurred in it" did not occur in it; it is only proximity to it. But there is no doubt that the better course is to avoid it if possible. If you find water that has not changed, it is better and further from being polluted by water with a foul, impure smell. And perhaps there is harm from a medical perspective in these smells carrying microbes that dissolve in this water.

The questioner : What is the difference...?

The Shaykh : Being heated by the sun is not disliked. For example, if someone in winter puts water in the sun to warm it and then bathes with it, there is no harm. "Or by a pure substance", such as what? Firewood, gas, electricity. It does not cause harm. Yes.