The ruling on water, as we have mentioned, is divided into four levels: whether impurity is mixed with it or not, it is ruled to be pure and purified, it is ruled to be pure but not purified, it is ruled to be neither purified nor pure, and it is ruled to be purified but not purified. Pure and purified water is water that has not been mixed with impurity, and pure but not purified is water. Water that is mixed with something that is not impure, such that the name pure water is removed from it, such as saffron water and other things, and it is ruled that it is neither pure nor purifying. It is water in which impurity has changed one of its characteristics. The author of this ruling rejects the hadith that he used as evidence for us. The legislator said that nothing makes it impure. So how do I consider this to be the case? What is being used as evidence here, and he did not consider it in the sense that we went to, that it is purified but not pure, and it is necessary for him to do