Explanation of the author's statement: "Or if urine or liquid feces have mixed with it and it is difficult to remove them, such as the cisterns on the road to Makkah, then it remains pure."

The Shaykh : This refers to the cisterns for collecting water. The road from Iraq to Makkah had cisterns in the mouths of the gorges and in the open fields. These cisterns for water still exist today. They contain a large amount of water. If human urine or liquid feces falls into them and does not alter the water, it remains pure, even according to the author's view, because it is difficult to remove the impurity. His statement "such as the cisterns on the road to Makkah" is an example. Similarly, large ponds like them are the same. If we find a large amount of water that is difficult to remove, then if it has not been altered by impurity, it is absolutely pure, and you are not asked about it. However, the well-known view in the madhhab among the later scholars differs from the author's statement. They do not distinguish between human urine and liquid feces and other impurities. According to this, the ruling is contingent on what? On the two qullahs. Anything less than two qullahs becomes impure even if it is not altered, and what reaches two qullahs or more does not become impure unless it is altered. There is no difference in this between human urine and liquid feces and anything else. Is that clear now? Good. So we have three opinions. What is the correct opinion? That there is no impurity except by alteration, whether the water is little or much. The madhhab among the later scholars is that if it reaches two qullahs, it does not become impure except by alteration, and what is less than two qullahs becomes impure even if it is not altered. The complete madhhab among the early scholars is that what reaches two qullahs does not become impure except by alteration, and what is less than two qullahs does not become impure, except in the case of human urine and liquid feces. For the criterion is not the two qullahs, but the difficulty of removal. What is difficult to remove does not become impure except by alteration, and what is not difficult to remove becomes impure merely by contact. I think the explanation has now clarified the issue. Good. We are left with the evidence of the madhhab that water becomes impure if it is less than two qullahs, even if it is not altered. Their evidence is the hadith And the evidence of those who say it does not become impure except by alteration is his statement, may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him, when he was asked about the Well of Budha'ah and what was in it of stench and carcasses, he said This is general and includes both little and much water. What is excluded from it is what is altered by impurity, by consensus and by weak hadiths that if impurity alters it, it is impure. We come to the hadith of the two qullahs. Regarding the hadith of the two qullahs, we say that scholars differed on its authenticity. Whoever says it is weak, there is no contradiction between it and the other hadith, because it does not oppose it while it is weak, and a weak hadith does not serve as proof. And if we authenticate it, they say it has a text (manut) and an implication (mafhum). Its text is And this is also not according to its generality, because an exception is made from it if it is altered, so it is not according to its generality, even its text is not according to its generality. Its implication is that what is less than two qullahs becomes impure. It is said: it becomes impure if it is altered by impurity, because the text of the first hadith takes precedence over the implication. And this is more correct. And it is supported, along with the supporting evidences from the athar, by theoretical evidence. And that is because the essence of filth is ugly; all impurities are ugly in their essence. If their effect is found in the water, the ruling of the water becomes like their ruling. And if their effect is not found, the concern is lifted. So what makes us transfer this pure water to the middle of filth and impurity without any reason, except merely for the sake of contact? Yes.