Islamic Fiqh > Purification (Tahara) > Impurities (najasat) and vessels > The types of impurities and their purification
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
The sheets on this page classify the impurities that leave the human body or form in it: madhi and wadi, mani, blood, pus and sanies, vomit and qalas, khamr and vaginal moisture. For each type, the page reports the definition given by the source, the ruling of each school, its Quranic and prophetic proofs, and the purification method it keeps.
Rulings are attributed as the sheet reports them, school by school and scholar by scholar, with exact takhrij and hadith grades flagged by the source.
Madhi is a white, thin, sticky liquid that comes out at the moment of desire or without desire, with no gushing and no languor following it, sometimes unnoticed; it concerns man and woman, and it is more abundant in women. Wadi is a white, turbid, thick liquid, resembling mani in thickness but differing from it by the round form of its emission: odorless, it flows after urination when the temperament holds back, or while carrying a heavy load, drop after drop.
Madhi and wadi are impure by the scholars' agreement. Al-Nawawi writes: the umma agreed on the impurity of madhi and wadi; he also reports the scholars' unanimity that their emission does not require the major ablution. The sheet cites as proof the hadith of 'Ali:
'Ali reports: I was a man subject to madhi and I felt too shy to question the Messenger of Allah because of his daughter, so I ordered al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad to ask him, and the Prophet answered: let him wash his member and perform wudu.
narrated by al-Bukhari (269) and Muslim (303)
Ibn Qudama concludes: madhi, wadi and wind break the ablution by consensus. The sheet also cites Ibn al-Mundhir: the exit of excrement through the anus, of urine through the man's member or the woman's vulva, of madhi and of wind are events each of which breaks purity and requires wudu. It finally opens on the infant's urine: whoever allows for it mere sprinkling does not rely on any purity of that urine, but on easing its removal; the source calls "an utterly false report" the attribution to al-Shafi'i of a purity of the baby boy's urine. Among the Shafi'is, two definitions of sprinkling compete: soaking the thing like other impurities, without wringing, according to Abu Muhammad al-Juwayni, the qadi Husayn and al-Baghawi; or pouring water abundantly without requiring the flow, the reflux or the drip, the view chosen as correct by Imamu l-Haramayn and the muhaqqiqun. Sprinkling suffices only as long as the child lives on milk alone: once he eats for nourishment, washing becomes obligatory without divergence.
Mani is the thick liquid that gushes when desire reaches its intensity. The Hanafis and Malikis hold it impure, as well as an isolated view among the Shafi'is and one narration of Imam Ahmad. Their proof is the hadith of 'Aisha:
'Aisha reports: I used to wash the mani from the garment of the Messenger of Allah, and he would go out to pray while the water spots remained on his garment.
narrated by al-Bukhari (229) and Muslim (289)
For the Hanafis, 'Aisha washed the mani from the Prophet's garment, which he knew and approved; yet washing belongs to impurities: had the mani been pure, he would have stopped her from wasting water without need. And since it exits through neither of the two natural passages, it is impure like the other impurities. The Malikis give its cause: it is blood transformed into stench and decay, and it exits by the urinary passage, so it is likened to urine in purity as in impurity. The mani of the man and that of the woman are equal. Hanafis and Hanbalis, on this basis, judge that rubbing suffices to purify it when dry, while Malik requires washing in every state, wet or dry. The Shafi'is, in their explicit texts, and the Hanbalis in the most famous view hold it pure; 'Aisha also says:
I used to rub the mani from the garment of the Messenger of Allah and he prayed in it.
narrated by Muslim (288)
No contradiction stands between the two reports: they are reconciled by carrying the washing on the recommended, as cleaning. Al-Mawardi supports purity with the word of Allah:
It is He who created man from water, then made for him kinship by blood and marriage.
Surah al-Furqan 54
Allah named the mani "water", so it takes the status of water in purification; it is the origin of man's creation, so it is pure like clay; and it is generated from a pure animal, so it is pure like the egg. Ibn Hajar answers the camp of impurity: the hadith describes an act, and an act alone does not prove obligation.
The jurists agree on the impurity of blood. They invoke:
Forbidden to you are the carrion and the blood.
Surah al-Ma'idah 3
and His word: "except if it be carrion or blood poured forth" (surah al-An'am 145), as well as the hadith of Asma:
A woman asked the Prophet: one of us is reached by menstrual blood on her garment, what to do with it? He said: scrape it, then rub it with water, sprinkle it and pray in it.
narrated by al-Bukhari (307) and Muslim (291)
Al-Nawawi draws from it that blood is impure by the consensus of the Muslims; he knows of no divergence except what the author of al-Hawi reported from some theologians declaring it pure, yet theologians are not counted in a consensus. Ibn Hajar reads in it that menstrual blood is like all other bloods regarding the obligation of washing it. Abu 'Umar Ibn 'Abd al-Barr explains the intended meaning: poured-forth blood is forbidden because impure; every blood follows menstrual blood, but the small amount is excused because Allah restricted the impurity of blood to its being poured forth: a drop fallen from flowing blood takes the ruling of the small, not of the much, without regard to its linguistic sense. A great number of scholars, at their head Imam Ahmad, transmitted the consensus: Ahmad says pus, sanies and thick purulent matter are easier to him than blood, whose impurity admits no doubt; asked whether pus and blood are equal, he answers: people never diverged over blood, while they diverged over pus. Ibn Hazm writes: they agreed that much blood, of any blood, except fish blood and that of what does not let its blood flow, is impure. Ibn al-'Arabi the Maliki, al-Qurtubi, Ibn Hajar and Ibn Qudama likewise attest the impurity of blood by agreement. Al-'Ayni adds that the hadith proves the lawfulness of removing impurity without water: no number is required there, but the extraction. Ibn 'Abidin, citing as-Siraj al-Hindi, notes that the blood of istihadah coming out when one cleans the teeth with the siwak before prayer is impure by consensus even if it does not break the ablution with al-Shafi'i. The sheet also cites the hadith of Fatima bint Abi Hubaysh:
No, it is only a vein and not menstruation; when menstruation comes, leave the prayer; when it goes away, wash the blood from yourself and pray.
narrated by al-Bukhari (306) and Muslim (333)
Al-Nawawi sees in it the command to remove the impurity and the impurity of blood. The case of the martyr, treated at length in the notes, is taken up in the divergences page.
Pus is pure matter mixed with no blood; sanies is the thin water of the wound mixed with blood before the matter thickens. No divergence stands between the four schools: both are impure like blood. Al-Nawawi: pus is impure without divergence, and the water of wounds that has changed is impure by agreement. Al-Shirazi: pus is impure because it is blood transformed into stench; if blood is impure, pus is more so. Ibn Qudama: pus, sanies and all that blood generates have its status; al-Mawwaq reports that pus and sanies have, with Malik, the status of blood; al-Kharshi declares them impure.
The scholars yet excuse some bloods. The Hanafis excuse human blood that does not flow over the head of the wound, and the blood of the bedbug and the flea, impossible to avoid and a source of hardship. The Malikis excuse less than a dirham of poured blood once separated from the animal. The Shafi'is excuse the small customary amount, blood or pus, one's own or another's, except the blood of the dog and the pig and their offshoot, of which nothing is excused given the heaviness of the impurity; as for one's own blood not separated from oneself, blister, wound or cupping spot, it is excused in small as in much, spread by the vein or not; the blood of the bedbug and the louse is excused too, and the excuse holds for all blood so long as it is not mixed with a foreign body. What the eye cannot perceive of impurities is excused, even if it is a grave impurity, given the hardship of precaution. The small is what people pass over by custom, for man is never free of pimples and itching that leave this much; the much is what overcomes the garment and its fold; it was also said: the worth of a dinar; or: less than a handful. The Hanbalis excuse a small amount of blood and of what it generates, pus and sanies, outside liquid and food, that is, in prayer, for man hardly escapes it and precaution is hard; the excused small is what does not abound in itself, and the excused pus exceeds in quantity its equivalent of blood, Ahmad saying it is easier than blood. The excuse requires the blood to come out of a human or a pure animal, from other than the two passages: come out from a passage, it is not excused; nor is the blood of an impure animal like the dog and the pig; nor is gathered blood excused more than scattered: abundant, it is not excused.
Vomit is what comes out of food after it settled in the stomach. Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis declare it impure, with details. The Hanafis: vomit to the measure of a full mouth is impure, what is below is pure by the choice of Abu Yusuf; the fatwas of Najm ad-Din al-Nasafi rule for the infant: his vomit on his mother's clothes is impure at a full mouth, and beyond the dirham it prevents prayer in that garment; al-Hasan reports from Abu Hanifa that nothing prevents so long as it does not abound, and this is what is correct. The Shafi'is declare it impure whether it comes out changed or not, for the food turned in the belly into stench and decay becomes like excrement; their proof is the hadith of 'Ammar:
O 'Ammar, the garment is washed only from five things: excrement, urine, vomit, blood and mani.
narrated by ad-Daraqutni (458)
The source flags its grade: ad-Daraqutni states that Thabit ibn Hammad alone narrated it and that it is very weak, Ibrahim and Thabit being both weak; al-Nawawi judges it in al-Majmu' false, of no probative value. The Shafi'is further excuse the one afflicted by vomit on the garment and body like the blood of fleas: affliction means a frequency such that absence becomes rare. The Hanbalis declare it impure, the food turned into decay resembling excrement. The narrations diverge from Ahmad on excusing a small vomit: one likens it to blood, another excuses nothing of impurity (see the divergences page). The Malikis restrict: the impure of vomit is what changed from the state of food, even without resembling the traits of urine, and its washing is obligatory from garment, body and place.
Qalas is a gush of water thrown up by the stomach, or pushed by a wind from the stomach, sometimes with food; others define it: what comes out of the belly to the measure of a full mouth or less, without being a vomit, for if swallowed back it becomes vomit again. Hanafis and Hanbalis judge it impure like vomit; the author notes having seen among the Shafi'is only a mention of qalas in the chapter of the nullifiers of wudu, stating that it does not nullify it. The Malikis apply to it the regime of vomit with the preceding detail: it is pure so long as it has not changed from the state of food; changed, it is impure. Al-Hattab distinguishes the changed qalas, impure, from the one that does not change or takes only the taste of water, pure; he reports Malik's word in the Muwatta about Rabi'a performing qalas repeatedly in the mosque after maghrib without leaving before praying, carried on the unchanged qalas. Ibn Bashir writes that qalas comes out at fullness or at the cooling of the temperament and may hold unchanged food, without impurity; al-Baji goes the same way and adds that rinsing the mouth is not obligatory there but recommended, to clean the mouth and remove the possible smell of food. Ad-Dardir judges pure a yellowish or mucous change that does not alter the state of food; ad-Dasuqi judges impure a change by acidity or the like even without the traits of urine, following the apparent of the Mudawwana, a view chosen by Sand, al-Baji, Ibn Bashir, Ibn Shas and Ibn al-Hajib, against at-Tannukhi, Ibn Rushd and Qadi 'Iyad, who hold vomit impure only if it resembles one of the traits of urine.
The jurists of the four schools agree on the impurity of khamr:
Wine, gambling, stone altars and divining arrows are only a defilement, the work of Satan; so avoid it, perhaps you will prosper.
Surah al-Ma'idah 90
Rijs, in the language, is the dirty and stinking thing (al-Misbah al-Munir). Al-Nawawi: khamr is impure with us, with Malik, Abu Hanifa, Ahmad and the rest of the scholars. Al-Qurtubi: the majority understood from its prohibition, from the disdain the Law shows it, from naming it a defilement and from commanding to avoid it, the ruling of its impurity. One objects: legal impurity is a status without an explicit text, and the forbidden is not necessarily impure; answer: His word "defilement" indicates its impurity, rijs in the language being impurity; and were a status enacted only upon an explicit text, the Law would be paralyzed, the texts being rare and most rulings drawn from appearances, generalities and indications. The isolated thesis of al-Muzani and its supporters are taken up in the divergences page.
The moisture of the woman's vulva is a white liquid oscillating between madhi and sweat. Abu Hanifa, a view the Shafi'is hold correct, and the Hanbalis declare it pure; al-Nawawi sees no difference with the moisture of other pure animals. Ibn Qudama argues: 'Aisha used to rub the mani from the Prophet's garment, a mani that comes from intercourse, for no prophet ever had a wet dream; now that mani meets the moisture of the vulva; and were the vulva declared impure, the woman's mani should be declared impure. The qadi of the Hanbalis, Abu Ya'la, judges impure the moisture touched during intercourse, because it is not safe from madhi; the sheet answers that the argument does not hold: when desire intensifies, it is mani that comes out without madhi, as in the wet dream. The Malikis, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad of the Hanafis, a view that forms the most correct divergence among the Shafi'is as among the Hanbalis, declare impure the internal moisture of the vulva, from which the child is not created, resembling madhi; it is a moisture generated in a place of impurity; the moisture of the outer vulva is pure by agreement. The proof of the camp of impurity:
Zayd ibn Khalid asked 'Uthman: what if a man has intercourse with his wife without ejaculating? 'Uthman answered: let him perform wudu as for prayer and wash his member; then he added: I heard it from the Messenger of Allah.
narrated by al-Bukhari (292) and Muslim (346)
Al-Bukhari adds that 'Ali, az-Zubayr, Talha and Ubayy were asked and gave the same order, and reports from Ubayy ibn Ka'b:
O Messenger of Allah, if a man has intercourse with the woman and does not ejaculate? He said: let him wash what touched him of the woman, then perform wudu and pray.
narrated by al-Bukhari (289)
Al-Nawawi: these two hadiths are abrogated for praying with wudu alone; but the command to wash the member and what it touched of her is established, not abrogated, and manifest for the impurity of the moisture; the other camp reads in it the recommended, while the absolute command means obligation with the majority of jurists. In his Sharh Muslim, he states that a group of scholars used this hadith for the purity of the moisture: a famous divergence among us and among others, and the more manifest is its purity.
The common core is clear: impure by agreement are urine, excrement, poured blood, pus, sanies, vomit, madhi, wadi and khamr; divergent are mani, impure with the Hanafis and Malikis and pure with the Shafi'is and Hanbalis, and vaginal moisture, pure with Abu Hanifa and the Hanbalis and impure in its inner part with the Malikis, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. In practice, washing with water what is visible and touched suffices in every school, and the debate bears mostly on the thresholds of excuse detailed in the divergences page.