Islamic Fiqh > Purification (Tahara) > Impurities (najasat) and vessels > The schools' divergences on impurities
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
This page gathers the divergences flagged by the sheets on impurities: the isolated theses and their supporters, the multiple narrations attributed to a single imam, the contestations of the impurity of blood and their answers, the multiple views on the dog, the tanned skins, vomit and the measured thresholds of excuse.
Every view is cited as the source reports it, with the books and takhrij mentioned in the notes.
Facing the consensus of the four schools, al-Muzani, of the companions of al-Shafi'i, supported the purity of khamr. The sheet's note lists its supporters: Rabi'a, Malik's master, al-Layth ibn Sa'd, Dawud az-Zahiri, as-San'ani, ash-Shawkani, al-Albani and Ibn 'Uthaymin. Their main proof is the hadith of Anas in the story of the prohibition: the Prophet ordered a herald to announce that khamr was forbidden, and it was poured until it flowed in the streets of Medina (al-Bukhari 2332, Muslim 1980); and the hadith of the man with two skins of khamr: "when Allah forbids something, He forbids its sale", the man having opened the skins until their content went away (Muslim 1206). Sa'id ibn Haddad al-Qarwi had already argued from the pouring into the streets: had it been impure, the Companions would not have done it, and the Prophet would have forbidden it to them as he forbade relieving oneself in the paths. Al-Qurtubi answers: the Companions had neither drains nor wells to pour it into, most had no latrines in their houses, as 'Aisha reports saying they feared digging any; carrying it out of the city would have cost and delayed what had to be immediate; the streets were wide and the khamr flowed only in limited passages one could avoid; and that pouring served as a publicizing of the annulment, attesting that no more benefit was drawn from it.
The camp of the purity of mani goes beyond the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis: the note cites Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, 'Ata', Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, Abu Thawr, Dawud and Ibn al-Mundhir, and reports the same thesis from Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, Ibn 'Umar and 'Aisha. A narration of Ahmad goes as far as declaring madhi pure, a thesis authenticated by Ibn 'Aqil the Hanbali, chosen by Abu l-Khattab in his book of divergences and advanced by Ibn Razin: Ahmad, asked which of the two is heavier, madhi or mani, answers they are equivalent, exiting not through the urinary passage but from the loins and the ribs, as Ibn 'Abbas said of madhi that it has, in his view, the worth of saliva and mucus. Ibn 'Aqil gives the reason: madhi is a part of mani, their cause being both desire. Ibn Hajar objects: had it been a part of mani, the major ablution would have been due. Ibn Taymiyya adds that the Companions had wet dreams in the Prophet's lifetime and mani reached their bodies with no order of washing reported; and in the notes, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib reports feeling madhi flow on his thigh while praying without caring, and 'Umar the same on the pulpit, Malik's Muwatta even reserving a chapter for the dispensation of wudu over madhi. Ibn Taymiyya sums up at last in Sharh al-'Umda: madhi is excused in the stronger of the two narrations, affliction spreading it and precaution being hard, like blood, even more given the divergence over its impurity; mani too, if one holds it impure; wadi, for its part, is not excused in the famous view, like urine; and a small amount of blood is excused in a single narration. In support of the purity of mani at last, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas and Ibn 'Abbas liken it to mucus and saliva: purify yourself, even with a wisp of idhkhir, washing being recommended when wet and rubbing when dry.
The longest note of the blood sheet answers those who uphold today the purity of poured blood. Its author, Shaykh 'Atiyya Salim, tells them: the consensus of the umma has lasted fourteen centuries; whoever denies its validity disqualifies himself from any discussion. Before the word of Allah:
Forbidden to you are the carrion and the blood.
Surah al-Ma'idah 3
they answer that blood is like the carrion: forbidden to eat, not impure in itself. Answer: this is the argument of pairing: blood is associated with the carrion whose impurity is established by the hadith of the dragged sheep, "why do you not take its skin? they said: it is dead", the Companions having understood from the mere fact of death that it had become impure; the Prophet did not correct them, he only showed them what purifies it, water and pounded qaraz, thereby confirming their understanding. Al-Bukhari and Muslim moreover placed the hadith of Fatima bint Abi Hubaysh in the chapter of impurities as much as in that of menstruation, to prove the impurity of blood. Ibn Hazm even draws from it a singular rule: the answer "wash the blood from yourself" carrying the article of the genus, all blood would be impure, down to the fish's. And Ibn Taymiyya mentions the impurity of blood in seven places of al-Majmu' and Majmu' al-Fatawa: no mujtahid counted among the four schools ever said poured blood pure. To the reports invoked by the camp of purity, 'Umar praying while his wound bled, and the army's guard pierced by three arrows without interrupting his recitation, the answer is that the state of constraint is not transposed to the state of capacity: 'Umar yet left the prayer for his wound, saying islam has no share for whoever abandons it. Remains the martyr buried without washing: al-Shafi'i reads in it the honor of meeting Allah blood-colored and musk-scented; al-Kasani writes that the blood serves him as witness on the day of resurrection, martyrdom preventing the impurity of death as for the martyrs of Uhud; al-Bukhari opened a chapter on the martyr's wound taking the color of blood and the scent of musk, and Ibn al-Munir concludes that the attribute having turned into musk, the status of impurity fell; az-Zarkashi reports at last three explanations, the most correct being the preservation of the trace of the worship meant to remain. The compiler ends: whoever says blood pure must admit that the Quran be written with blood.
Asked about the dog, pure or impure, Ibn Taymiyya lists three known views: the dog entirely impure, down to its hair, the view of al-Shafi'i and one of the two narrations of Ahmad; the dog entirely pure, down to its saliva, Malik's view in the famous; the saliva impure and the hair pure, the famous school of Abu Hanifa, the most transmitted narration among most of his companions and Ahmad's second narration, and this is the most likely view. Consequences: the wetness of the hair touching the garment or the body does not impurify; the licked water is poured; the licked milk is eaten with Malik, poured with Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad; milk in great quantity is not impure according to what is correct. Ibn al-Mundhir lists for the licked water three theses: pure and valid for purification, the vessel being washed as commanded, the view of az-Zuhri when needed, of Malik and of al-Awza'i; wudu with it then tayammum after, reported from 'Abda ibn Abi Lubaba, supported by Sufyan ath-Thawri, 'Abd al-Malik al-Majishun and Muhammad ibn Muslima; impure water to be poured, the vessel washed seven times the first or the last with earth, the view of al-Shafi'i, Abu 'Ubayd, Abu Thawr and the people of rational opinion. Abu Bakr Ibn al-Mundhir refutes the third: no proof establishes the impurity of the licked water; Allah may assign His servants a worship by whatever He wills, like the limbs of wudu devoid of impurity and the major ablution of the junub, "the believer is not impure"; "the purification of the vessel" may mean a purification of worship, and the word bearing two senses, it cannot be reduced to one without proof; impurities are purified in three washings by agreement, some saying one suffices: the dog's saliva cannot be graver, else three washings would have sufficed and the four others would have been worship.
The hair calls for its own narrations. Ibn Taymiyya: the hair of everything growing on an impure spot carries three views: all pure, including the dog's and the pig's hair, the choice of Abu Bakr ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz; all impure, the view of al-Shafi'i; the hair pure of what was pure alive, sheep, rat, and impure of what was impure alive, dog, pig, the most transmitted narration among most of Abu Hanifa's companions. The most likely view: all hair is pure, unlike the saliva, the origin of things being purity and no impurity nor forbidding without proof, as the word of Allah attests:
Allah does not lead a people astray after guiding them, before showing them what they must guard against.
Surah at-Tawba 115
and the sound hadith: "the greatest crime of the Muslim is to ask about a thing not forbidden to him, until it becomes forbidden to him by his question" (al-Bukhari 7289, Muslim 2358), and the hadith of Salman al-Farisi, graded good by at-Tirmidhi (1726) and reported too by Ibn Majah (3367): "the lawful is what Allah made lawful in His book, the unlawful what He made unlawful in it, and what He kept silent about belongs to what He pardoned". The hadiths of the dog mention only the licking: the impurity of the rest of the parts is established only by analogy; and the hair differs from the saliva in that the latter dissolves from inside the dog while the hair grows on its back. The jurists make this distinction everywhere: the carrion's hair is pure, its saliva not; al-Shafi'i and most hold pure the crop growing in impure land, and the dog's hair, at worst, would be a crop in impure land, purer still given its dryness; and the animal feeding on impurity, forbidden of milk while the effect shows, becomes lawful again by agreement once tied up until purification: a status bound to a cause falls with it, and no effect of impurity shows in the hair. As for the hair and plumage of the fierce ones, whose animal many scholars of Iraq declare impure, two narrations of Ahmad: pure, the view of the multitude including Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i; impure, the choice of many of the later Hanbalis; purity is the correct answer.
The Hanafis require three obligatory washings of the vessel licked by the dog. Their proof is what at-Tahawi reported from Abu Hurayra: the vessel is washed three times from the dog's licking. Yet that transmitter himself reports the seven: when the transmitter acts or rules against what he narrates, his narration ceases to be a proof, for it is not allowed that he hear a word from the Prophet and act or rule against it, his probity falling: a sign of abrogation. Or the seven are carried on the recommended: the Prophet first hardened the command against the dogs, to the point of ordering to kill them and break the vessels stained with khamr, then forbade breaking the vases; the support is the hadith in which ad-Daraqutni reports from Abu Hurayra that the licked vessel is washed three times, or five, or seven. The note fixes its grade: a weak hadith; al-Bayhaqi weakens it, noting 'Abd al-Wahhab ibn ad-Dahhak, abandoned, and Isma'il ibn 'Ayyash whose narration of the Hijazis is not retained; another path passes by 'Abd al-Malik ibn Abi Sulayman, alone among the companions of 'Ata' and 'Ata' alone among the companions of Abu Hurayra to transmit it so, while the trustworthy narrators all report it seven times, and al-Bayhaqi concludes: what contradicts the trustworthy is not accepted from 'Abd al-Malik, at-Tahawi having relied, on the contrary, on the version stopped at Abu Hurayra to establish the abrogation of the seven, Abu Hurayra not contradicting the Prophet in what he reports from him. Remains the rational justification: had the seven been obligatory, one would not have left the choice between three, five and seven; and the analogy of the one waking at night, to whom the Prophet ordered to pour water over his hands two or three times: purity is thus obtained by a lesser number facing graver impurities.
The tanning file unfolds five positions. Abu Hanifa: all skins are purified by tanning, except the pig's, impure in its essence, living and dead, its impurity not resting on its blood. Abu Yusuf: the pig's skin itself gets purified. Al-Shafi'i: all skins of carrion get purified except those of the dog, the pig and their offshoot, and Ahmad, in one narration, reserves purification for what was pure in life. Ahmad in the famous, which is one of the two narrations of Malik: no skin of carrion gets purified by tanning. Malik in the other narration: all get purified, including the dog's and the pig's, the outer side only, the use remaining dry, as a grain sack, not wet, water or butter. Each camp has its proofs: the prohibition rests on the skin's status, part of the carrion, and on the letter to Juhayna abrogating the initial concession, "I had granted you" attesting the license came first and the last command prevails; purity rests on "when the skin is tanned, it becomes pure" (Muslim 366) and on the dead sheep whose skin the Prophet regretted was not tanned and used (al-Bukhari 5531, Muslim 363), tanning delivering the leather from the bloods that reached it at death.
The sheets fix here what the schools excuse, in quantity as in nature. The small vomit, to begin, carries two narrations from Ahmad: one giving it the worth of blood, as an impure exit of the human outside the two passages; one excusing nothing of impurity. Abu Hanifa excuses the small of impurities and delimits it by the Baghdadi dirham. Al-Mawsili exposes his grid: the grave impurity is the one whose impurity the source established by an uncontradicted text, with no hardship avoiding it; the light one is the one where two texts contradict in purity and impurity, the interpretive effort standing as text; with Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, the grave is the one whose impurity carries agreement without affliction, the light the one that diverges. Of the grave, what prevents beyond the dirham is in area if liquid, in weight if dense, that is, the width of the palm, following 'Umar: an impurity the size of my fingernail does not prevent prayer until it exceeds it; Muhammad specifies the great dirham is the mithqal. An-Nakha'i lifts the veil: they meant the size of the sitting place and veiled it as a dirham; the small is excused by agreement, like the imperceptible impurity and the bedbug's blood, the much counted by agreement, and the dirham serves as boundary because after istinja the remaining trace reaches about that size while prayer remains valid by agreement. Of the light, what reaches a quarter of the garment prevents, the quarter holding the status of the whole in the legal statuses; it was specified: a quarter of the whole garment, or a quarter of the reached part, sleeve, hem; Abu Yusuf: a span over a span; Muhammad: a cubit over a cubit, at the place of the two feet; the choice goes to the quarter, while Abu Hanifa refuses any measure, leaving to the afflicted the estimate according to people's variation in disgust. Every exit of the body requiring purification is a grave impurity: excrement, urine, blood, sanies, vomit, without divergence, and mani likewise; so it is with the beasts' dung and the birds' droppings, and the urine of the non-edible pack beasts with Abu Hanifa, an uncontradicted text, while the two companions see in it a light impurity given the general affliction and the divergence. Malik sets no difference between the small and the much, except blood whose small is excused; of the menstrual one, two narrations, the most famous likening it to the rest of the bloods according to Ibn Rushd; the boundary of the small and the much is the Baghdadi dirham, the black circle on the mule's foreleg, and the Small Clarification cites "a dirham of blood, pus and sanies" excused.
Among the Shafi'is, ash-Shirazi divides: the non-bloods, if they are a filth graspable by the eye, are not excused, precaution not being hard; imperceptible, three cases: excused like the stables' dust; not excused if precaution stays easy; or two views. Al-Nawawi rectifies the compiler's formula: the fly's remnant graspable by the eye is not excused without divergence; al-Baghawi yet gives it the status of the flea's blood, affliction spreading it, and the correct is that it has its status. The bloods: that of the flea and the louse, whose small is excused, precaution being hard, upon the word of Allah "He imposed no hardship on you in the religion" (surah al-Hajj 78); the much carries two views, al-Istakhri not excusing, rare and easy to wash, the others excusing, the more correct view since the kind is hard to avoid, the rare following the frequent. The blood of the other animals carries three views in al-Umm: the small excused by custom, the most correct view by agreement; in al-Imla', never excused, small nor much, precaution staying possible as with urine; in the old one, excused below the handful, not at the handful. Al-Nawawi fixes the small at the level people pass over by custom, al-Azhari explaining it was counted an excuse and one was discharged of removing it given the hardship of precaution; some bound it to a gleam. One's own blood has two kinds: that of pimples, of the flea's blood status by agreement, the small excused absolutely and the much carrying two views, the more correct being the excuse; that of abscesses, wounds, bloodletting and cupping, two paths: like the flea's blood according to the text of the majority, ar-Rafi'i seeing in it the requirement of the majority; or like foreign blood, the more correct path chosen by Ibn Kajj, Shaykh Abu Muhammad and Imamu l-Haramayn. The foreign and animal pus and sanies have the status of that animal's blood; the divergence of the excuse is restricted besides the blood of the dog and the pig and their offshoot, of which nothing is excused without divergence; al-Baghawi adds the fly's remnant and the bat's urine to the blood's status, given the impossibility of precaution. The sheet branches at last: in prayer, a wound whose blood gushes without soiling the skin, or a minimal soiling like the bloodletting's exit, does not invalidate the prayer, by the hadith of Jabir of the Prophet's two guards, one of whom, wounded, kept praying with his blood flowing; what separates from the skin is not attributed to it even though its parts touch, as water poured over an impurity is not thereby impure along its path. The Hanbalis close the file: nothing of impurity is excused, however imperceptible, including the residue on the fly's feet, upon the generality of "and your garments purify" (surah al-Muddaththir 4) and Ibn 'Umar's word: we were ordered to wash the impurities seven times; except a small amount of blood and of what it generates, pus and wound water, outside liquid and food, excused in prayer for man hardly escapes it, like the trace of istijmar; liquid and food excuse nothing. The conditions: exiting a human or a pure animal, from other than the two passages, the passage likening to urine or excrement; besides, the blood of menstruation, lochia and istihadah, which 'Aisha sums up: nothing for each of us but a garment of menstruation, and when blood reached it she scraped it with her nail; the donkey's and the mule's blood follows the impure regime. The scattered on one garment is gathered: abundant, it is not excused; the scattered over several garments is not gathered, each counted for itself; the impurity of a thin thing pierced through is one single impurity without continuity, but two impurities separated by an untouched spot count separately and, gathered, if they exceed the threshold, they are not excused; the blood of the edible vein after slaughter and what remains between the fibers of the flesh is pure even though the redness shows, impossible to avoid like the fish's blood.
To decide in practice: following one's school on mani, vaginal moisture and the thresholds of excuse suffices, and facing a stain, the common safe rule is to remove the visible and wash with water; the measured thresholds, dirham, quarter of the garment, handful, serve mostly the jurists, and the general facilitation means no forbidding is invented without proof.