Explanation of the author's statement: "Or it is lifted by a small amount of impurity"

The Shaykh : The third opinion states "Or it is lifted by a small amount of impurity", meaning that the water becomes pure but not purifying. This applies whether the impurity affected all the limbs or only some of them. For example, a man has a pot of water less than two qullahs in which he performs wudu. He scoops some water onto his hand and washes his hands. Then he scoops more and washes his face. Up to this point, the water has not become pure but not purifying. Then he places his elbow or arm in it, immersing it with the intention of washing. When he removes his hand, the impurity has been lifted from the hand. This is what is meant by "lifted by a small amount of impurity". Alternatively, a man has water less than two qullahs and is in a state of major ritual impurity. He intends to remove the major impurity and immerses himself in this water. When he comes out, this is also considered lifting impurity by a small amount. Or, during wudu, he collects the water that drips from his face and hands. This is also lifting impurity by a small amount. If impurity is lifted by a small amount, the water becomes pure but not purifying. There is no direct evidence from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding this, but there is an analogy (qiyas) cited. They argue that this water was used for purification, so it cannot be used for purification again, just as a slave who is freed cannot be freed again. Do you understand this analogy? However, this analogy is flawed for two reasons. First, the difference between the case being compared and the case it is compared to is obvious, and it is a condition for valid analogy that the two cases be equal in the operative cause. Second, the case it is compared to (the original case) is the one that can revert. A freed slave can potentially become a slave again. Therefore, what they mentioned is incorrect in two ways. First, the analogy is invalid because the difference between the original case and the branch case is clear. The original case is the slave who was freed; once we freed him, did he remain a slave or not? He did not remain a slave. But in this case, when impurity is lifted by a small amount, does the water remain water or not? It remains water. Therefore, the analogy is not valid. Second, a slave can potentially return to slavery if he escapes to the disbelievers and we later capture him, in which case we may enslave him again. Thus, the description of slavery returns to him, and it is valid to free him a second time. Based on this flawed analogy, we say that the correct view is that if impurity is lifted by a small amount, the water is purifying (mutahhir), not merely pure but not purifying. This is because the original state is that the water is purifying, and we cannot depart from this original state except with a sound legal proof. Since this proof is not sound, the second issue will be discussed, if Allah wills.