Islamic Fiqh > Purification (Tahara) > Ablution (wudu): complete guide > What does not nullify wudu
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
The nullifiers of wudu hold a unanimous core and a wide disputed periphery. This page presents the core, then reviews the cases the majority of schools does not count among nullifiers: blood and whatever leaves the body outside the two passages, loud laughter in prayer, the meat of grazing animals and camels, apostasy, doubt about nullification, the honor kiss to close kin, and braided hair.
Ibn al-Mundhir reports consensus on what leaves the two passages: excrement from the rear, urine from the privy, in man and woman alike, then emission of sperm, gas passed from the rear, and loss of reason however it comes: each of these breaks purity and requires wudu, on the words: "or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself" (al-Ma'idah 6).
O you who believe, when you rise for prayer, wash your faces and your hands to the elbows, wipe over your heads and your feet to the ankles; or if you have touched women and find no water, then take for yourselves clean earth.
Surah al-Ma'idah, 6
The detail narrows on rare emissions. Malik and his companions count no nullification for the rare emission, like a stone, a worm, or slight urinary leaking, on the words: "no wudu except from a sound or a breath", aimed at the frequent. Al-Mawardi ranks what requires wudu into five categories, of which habitual emissions (excrement, urine, gas, menstrual blood) require it with no disagreement, and rare emissions (pre-seminal fluid, post-seminal fluid, worm, stone, incontinence) require it with ash-Shafi'i and Abu Hanifa, Malik denying it. The pre-seminal fluid holds its own hadith: Ali asked the Prophet about that fluid, and he answered: "wudu suffices for it".
A special case: sperm. The shafi'is establish in the sound report that its emission requires the ritual bath and not wudu, even by mere looking or a nocturnal emission seated, since Allah imposed the graver of the two states and not the lighter; an-Nawawi cites an isolated shafi'i view counting it also as a nullifier, and the report of Abu at-Tayyib counts it as both at once, held strong by ad-Damiri and chosen by the shaykh ar-Rafi'i. The wisdom of the distinction: one who was in major impurity then bathes, his prayer is disputed in the earlier view, valid here with no disagreement. A second benefit: one whose major impurity stands apart from any ritual impurity, if he performs tayammum for lack of water, may pray as many obligatory prayers as he wills with a single tayammum, so long as he incurs no impurity, like the menstruating woman who performs tayammum for intercourse or prayer.
If blood, vomit, or another impurity leaves a wound, a vein opened, a cupping cut, a nosebleed, or the mouth: the hanafis and the hanbalis count nullification whatever the source, Ahmad reserving the case of a notable emission, the light one holding two transmissions, the retained one being non-nullification. Al-Buhuti argues from Ibn Abbas's words on blood: if notable, repeat; Ahmad cites Ibn Umar pressing a burn from which blood came, praying without fresh wudu, and Ibn Abi Awfa pressing an abscess, with no Companion contradicting them, which stands as consensus.
The malikis, the shafi'is and Ibn Taymiyya count none of these emissions as a nullifier, whatever the amount. An-Nawawi writes: only the place touched by the outgoing impurity is cleansed, wudu remains save nullification by another cause, the origin being that no nullification stands without a text of the Law, and no text exists, analogy being impossible here since the cause of nullification is not rational; Ibn al-Mundhir adds: I know of no proof with one who imposes wudu for it. Ibn Taymiyya sums: the most apparent is that neither the privy, nor women, nor impurities outside the two passages, nor loud laughter, nor washing the dead impose wudu; no sound proof backs those who impose them, but the recommendation is manifest.
Ibn Rushd ranks three schools on what leaves the body: those who consider the emission alone, from any place: Abu Hanifa and his companions, ath-Thawri, Ahmad and a group, backed by the early generation of Companions, every flowing blood requiring wudu, save phlegm with Abu Hanifa; Abu Yusuf adds the filled mouth. Those who consider the two passages alone: ash-Shafi'i and his companions, and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Hakam among the malikis, whatever leaves them nullifying, blood, stone or phlegm, in health as in sickness. Those who consider the emission, the passage and the nature of the emission: Malik and all his companions, the habitual emissions of the two passages nullifying, but not blood, a stone, a worm, nor incontinence. The root of the disagreement, Ibn Rushd writes, lies in the three readings of the agreed texts on emissions of the two passages.
All scholars agree that loud laughter outside prayer does not nullify wudu. The disagreement bears on laughter during prayer. The majority, malikis, shafi'is and hanbalis, do not count it as a nullifier: what does not break outside prayer does not break within it; laughter emits no impurity, it is a sound like speech and weeping; and obligation comes from the Lawgiver, who set none here. Ibn Taymiyya adds: wudu after laughter is recommended in one of the two views of Ahmad's madhhab, the hadith ordering the laughing to repeat wudu aiming at their fault, and it is recommended to every sinner to perform wudu then pray two rak'ahs and seek forgiveness, on the hadith narrated by Abu Dawud (1521), at-Tirmidhi (406 and 3006) and Ibn Majah (1395).
The hanafis count loud laughter in prayer among the nullifiers, when it comes from a waking adult, in a complete prayer with bowing and prostration, whether in wudu, tayammum or the bath, deliberately or by forgetfulness, on the report of Abu al-Aliya: the Prophet prayed with his companions when a blind man fell into a well, the people laughed, and he ordered the laughing ones to repeat wudu and prayer; narrated by ad-Darqutni (1/62 and after) and al-Bayhaqi (1/146), who note it is a suspended hadith, the suspended reports of Abu al-Aliya counting nothing, so freely he took his hadith from anyone.
The hanafi grid separates loud laughter, audible to neighbors, which breaks wudu and prayer together; laughter audible to the laugher alone, which breaks prayer alone; the smile, soundless, which breaks nothing. An inner question: is laughter a ritual impurity or a punishment? The second reading prevails among them, argued by Ibn Abidin in the Bahr: laughter is no outgoing impurity, and the hadiths command only repetition; the practical consequence: one who holds laughter a punishment may touch the Quran and write the Quran after, one who holds it an impurity may not.
The majority, hanafis, malikis, shafi'is in the madhhab and Ahmad in one transmission, impose no wudu after the meat of grazing animals. Proofs: Jabir's hadith: "the later of the two commands of the Messenger of Allah was to abandon wudu after what fire has touched" (narrated by Abu Dawud, 192, at-Tirmidhi, 80, an-Nasa'i, and Ibn Majah, authentic); the hadith "wudu comes from what leaves, not from what enters", narrated by ad-Darqutni (1/151) in raised form and judged very weak, yet served by the meaning; and al-Kasani explaining that ritual impurity is the exit of an impurity or its cause, not the entry of food.
A man asked: O Messenger of Allah, do I perform wudu after camel meat? He said: yes.
narrated by Muslim (360)
The hanbalis in the madhhab, chosen also by an-Nawawi, al-Bayhaqi, Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Khuzayma among the shafi'is, require wudu after camel meat. An-Nawawi writes: it is the strong one by the proof, two authentic hadiths with no decisive contrary answer, chosen by verifying scholars. Second text: the Prophet was asked about wudu after camel meat, he said "perform its wudu", then about the meat of sheep, "perform none" (narrated by Abu Dawud, 184, at-Tirmidhi, 81, Ibn Majah, 494, and Ahmad, authentic). Ahmad and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh cite the two hadiths as authentic.
Ibn Qudama answers the objections: the hadith of Ibn Abbas against nullification has no raised origin; Jabir's hadith does not oppose it, the order of nullification for camel meat being later than or contemporary with the abrogation of wudu after fire; and the command is understood only as obligation, disappointing the questioner by a mere recommendation would mislead him. The hand-washing argument is rejected on four points: washing the hands alone is not obligatory; the term wudu on the Lawgiver's tongue bears its legal sense; the context concerned the wudu of prayer; and the Prophet would have distinguished sheep meat, whose hand washing stays recommended.
Apostasy is uttering what removes one from islam, by word, by conviction, or by a doubt that displaces. The disagreement: one who apostatizes then returns to islam, did his earlier wudu hold? The malikis in the famous report and the hanbalis count apostasy among the ritual impurities: return to islam permits no prayer without fresh wudu, even if he broke nothing else, on the words: "it has been revealed to you, and to those before you, that if you set up partners to Allah, your work will come to nothing" (az-Zumar 65), purity being a work. Ibn al-Qasim transmits the mere recommendation of wudu in this case.
The hanafis and the shafi'is count apostasy among no causes of nullification: leaving islam wipes out works at death, on the words: "those who apostatize and die unbelievers, their works are void in this world and the next" (al-Baqara 217), the condition of voiding being death, not the leaving itself; while he lives and returns, his wudu stands if no other cause broke it. The divergence reveals two conceptions of nullification: interruption of an act of worship in course with the first, a listed ritual impurity by the text with the second.
The majority, hanafis, shafi'is and hanbalis, apply the rule of certainty: certain of his purity, doubting an impurity, or certain of the impurity, doubting purity, he rests on what he is certain of; one who knows he performed wudu and doubts having produced an impurity stays pure, and one who knows himself impure and doubts having performed wudu is not in a state of wudu. Basis: Abdallah ibn Zayd reports that the man who believes he senses something in prayer was asked of the Prophet: "let him not leave until he hears a sound or senses a scent" (al-Bukhari 137, Muslim 361), and Muslim reports (276): "if one of you senses in his belly something he doubts, let him not leave the mosque until he hears a sound or senses a scent".
The mixed case: certain of both purity and impurity, not knowing which came first, like one who knows he was pure then impure at noon without holding the order; hanbalis and, on the sounder view, shafi'is and some hanafis send him back to his former state. The hanafis in the famous report declare him pure. The malikis require repeating wudu when doubt of an impurity follows certain wudu, save habitual doubt, the one that returns daily; al-Hattab notes: doubt after prayer does not force repeating what has passed, and records three figures of doubt requiring wudu: doubting the nullifier after certain purity, doubting purity after certain nullifier, and doubting precedence between the two.
Ibn al-Mundhir reports the consensus of every scholar he holds: no wudu for one who kisses his mother, daughter or sister in honor, at a return from travel, nor for bodily contact when handing an object, save a view reported from ash-Shafi'i by some Egyptians, whose establishment he himself doubts. Abu Hanifa and Ahmad in an established transmission impose nothing for kissing the wife, with desire or without, on the hadith: "he kissed one of his wives then went out to prayer without wudu" (narrated by Abu Dawud, 179, at-Tirmidhi, 86, an-Nasa'i, and Ibn Majah, 502, authentic); obligation comes from the Law, and nothing came here.
As for braided hair, the malikis establish that a braid made of the scalp's own hair is never undone in wudu, man or woman, tight or loose, unlike the ritual bath where a tight braid is undone. The maliki rules: a braid held by three threads or more, undone always, in wudu and bath, tight or loose; a braid held by fewer than three threads, undone if tight, otherwise not; a braid with no thread, never undone in wudu. Ad-Dasuqi sums case by case. The other schools require no undoing: water reaches the scalp and wiping the prescribed zone suffices, a question already treated in the page on obligations.
In practice, the safest rule of conduct holds in three points: no nullifier without a text; certainty over what is certain, doubt set aside over what is doubted; and a fresh wudu as a recommendation when doubt keeps returning or after a fault committed in prayer, a view that reconciles the schools without excess.