I say, and with God's success: Water is divided in terms of its ruling into four categories: First: Pure water that purifies from ritual impurity: This is the absolute water that has not been mixed with anything that would restrict it, or it is the water that remains with the characteristics that God Almighty created it with, without any change in its taste, color, or smell, or it is any water that, if looked at, would be called water in general: such as rainwater, seawater, ponds, cisterns, valleys, springs, wells, water from the gulf, streams, and rivers. The ruling of absolute water is that it removes real impurity from clothing and the body, and it removes ritual impurity, which is minor and major impurity, so it is permissible to perform ablution and bathing with it. Second: Pure water that does not purify from ritual impurity: This is the restricted water that does not come to mind when the name water is mentioned. For the observer cannot call it water without a restriction, such as saying: watermelon water, or something similar, so the name water does not apply to it in general, unlike absolute water. It includes: 1. Any water extracted from fruit or trees through treatment and manipulation, or that comes out of them without squeezing: such as watermelon, pumpkin, lemon, pomegranate, rose water, basil, and jasmine. 2. Water that has lost its nature: in terms of liquidity, flow, irrigation, and growth, to the extent that it has taken on another name other than water, and the loss of its liquidity means that it cannot be squeezed from clothing, and the loss of its flow means that it does not flow over the limbs like water. The ruling of restricted water is that it is pure but does not purify from ritual impurity, so it is permissible to remove real impurity from clothing and the body with it, but it is not permissible to perform ablution or bathing with it. Third: Impure water: This is divided into two types, flowing water and stagnant water: The first: flowing water: This is water that is removed by a straw or a leaf, and its ruling is that it does not become impure by the occurrence of impurity in it, whether little or much, as long as it is flowing, except if the trace of impurity is seen in it by changing its taste, color, or smell. The second: stagnant water: This can be either little or much: the little is that which has an area of less than ten arms by ten arms - which equals (25) square meters of water surface area, and a depth that does not reveal the ground when scooped from it. The ruling of little stagnant water is that it becomes impure by the occurrence of impurity in it, and knowing that it has occurred in it with certainty or with a preponderance of suspicion, it becomes impure even if the trace of impurity does not appear in it. The much water is that which does not move one end by the movement of the other, and scholars have defined it by area, estimating it at ten by ten - which equals (25) square meters of water surface area, and a depth that does not reveal the ground when scooped from it - and the ruling of much stagnant water is that it does not become impure unless the trace of impurity is seen in it by changing its taste, color, or smell, even at the place of occurrence, even if the impurity has a mass, such as being visible and apparent, so one should not perform ablution from its place. Fourth: Water whose purifying ability is doubtful but not its purity: This is the leftover water from every animal whose meat is disputed regarding its permissibility to eat: such as the domestic donkey and the mule whose mother is a female donkey, for its purity and impurity regarding ritual impurity is not established, so it is doubtful in its purifying ability for ritual impurity. If one does not find any other water to perform ablution with, they may perform ablution with it and may also perform dry ablution (tayammum), and whichever comes first is permissible, but it is permissible to remove real impurity from clothing and the body with it; because it is pure and the doubt is only in its purifying ability for ritual impurity; and the reason for the doubt in it is the conflicting evidence regarding it. See: Maraqi al-Falah pp. 19-21, Al-Hadiyya al-‘Alaiyya p. 12, Al-Wiqaya and its explanation by Sadr al-Shari’a pp. 95-96, and God knows best.