Explanation of the author's statement: "And if its taste, color, or smell changes due to cooking or something falling into it"

The Shaykh : Then he said, "And if its taste, smell, or color changes", meaning it changes completely such that you no longer taste the taste of water, or the majority of these three attributes changes. "By cooking" means you cook something pure in it; we cook this water with something pure, such as meat, and its taste, color, or smell changes significantly and clearly. In that case, it becomes pure but not purifying. This is one case. Or "by something falling into it" means you did not cook anything in it, but something fell into it. In that case, it becomes pure but not purifying. However, an exception is made from this issue regarding what was mentioned before: what is difficult to protect water from, and what does not mix with it. If the change occurs due to its passage or its staying, or if it changes due to a long duration, even if the change is significant, it does not become pure but not purifying; rather, it remains purifying, as mentioned before. Our discussion is about what is excepted from "something falling into it." There are two things: the first is what is difficult to protect water from, and the second is what does not mix with it. So if you put pieces of charcoal in purifying water and it changes, the result is that it is purifying. Or if there are trees around this water and their leaves fall into it and it changes, it is purifying. That is all. So what does not mix with it and what is difficult to protect water from are excepted; if it changes due to them, it becomes pure but not purifying. This indicates, if Allah wills, the weakness of this opinion. For example, they say that if tree leaves, which are difficult to protect water from, fall into the water and it changes, it is purifying. But if I bring tree leaves and put them in and the water changes, it becomes pure but not purifying. It is known that if the ruling changes due to the change, there is no difference between what is difficult to protect from and what is not. Do you see if water is around a donkey stable and the wind starts bringing leaves from these trees and putting them in the water, making it difficult to protect the water from them? Does it become impure or does it not become impure?

The questioner : It does not become impure.

The Shaykh : It does not become impure, even according to the school of thought.

The questioner : If it does not change, it does not become impure.

The Shaykh : It is not changed, or it is a small amount and it did not change. My brothers, the one who distinguishes between what is difficult to protect water from and what is not is only in the category of "pure." As for "impure," there is no difference. If it changes due to impurity, even if it is difficult to protect the water from it, it becomes impure. The second case: another man brings tree leaves and puts them in the water; it becomes pure but not purifying. That is all. Fine. Another example: another man has a small pond that does not reach two qullahs, and there is a donkey stable around it. The wind carries this dung and throws it into this water, and it changes. It is impure. It is impure. And if it did not change, leave it. If it is two qullahs or more and it changes, it is impure. It is impure. If it is difficult to protect the water from it, if it is difficult, and he throws dung into the water and it changes due to it, it is impure. Fine. Now, regarding the change, there is no difference between the thing being intentional or unintentional; it causes the water to transition from being purifying to being impure, or to being pure but not purifying. And yet, the jurists distinguish in the issue of "pure but not purifying" between what is difficult to protect water from and what is not. If the change of water by a pure substance transferred it from being purifying to being pure, if that were the case, there would be no difference between what is difficult to protect from and what is not, just as we said regarding the transition of water from being purifying to being impure: there is no difference between what is difficult to protect water from and what is not, as long as the operative cause is the change of the water. So the fact that they distinguish indicates the weakness of this opinion. Yes. Fine. Or if something falls into it, what does the author say? "Or if a little of it is lifted by a hadath". Fine. Let us see what the evidence of the school of thought is for this being pure or not purifying. They say it is because it is not free-flowing water. This is the operative cause: because it is not free-flowing water. There is no evidence for this, but they say it is not free-flowing water, and it is only called "water of such-and-such," just as it is called rose water or basil water, and the like. But we say that this is not sufficient to transfer it from being purifying to being pure, unless its name changes completely, so that it is called, for example, this is broth, this is tea, and this is coffee. In that case, it is not called water but rather a drink, added to what changed it. As for it remaining with the name of water but its color, taste, or smell changing due to this pure substance, such as if it changes due to leaves, like someone around a library, and this library has leaves that fall into this water, it is not said that this is leaf water; it is water that changed due to leaves.