Isnadإسناد
Support · ṣadaqah jāriyahAsk a question
wiki/scholar/scaffold-reviewer

Scaffold reviewer profile

هل ينقض الدم الوضوء؟
Scholar-reviewed·Last verified 2026-05-18 by scaffold_reviewer_2026-05-18·Decay window 365d·Edited 4 times
StatusScholar-reviewed
TypeScholar · ruling page
SensitivityLow
Reviewers of recordscaffold_reviewer_2026-05-18
Last verified2026-05-18 · re-review in 365d
Madhāhib coveredḤanafīMālikīShāfiʿīḤanbalī
Sources0 — see chain at right
Sectarian scopeSunni
Slugscaffold-reviewer
ContradictionsNone on file

Summary الخلاصة

The exit of blood from anywhere on the body other than the two designated passages (sabīlayn) is a settled point of ikhtilāf among the four Sunni madhāhib. The disagreement is not stylistic — it reflects two distinct readings of the textual evidence and two distinct views of what counts as a nāqiḍ (invalidator) of wuḍūʾ.

Placeholder reviewer profile for testing UI; replace with named human reviewer data.

Scriptural evidence الأدلة

The base text for the nawāqiḍ of wuḍūʾ is Q 5:6, which lists the actions requiring purification but does not explicitly enumerate what breaks it:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلَاةِ فَاغْسِلُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ ۝

The hadith literature contains several reports relevant to the question. Two are load-bearing:

(1) The report of Anas ibn Mālik that the Prophet ﷺ underwent cupping (iḥtijām) and prayed without renewing wuḍūʾ Abū Dāwūd 198. The chain is disputed — some classed it as ḥasan (al-Albānī), others ḍaʿīf — but it is widely cited by the three schools that do not invalidate.
(2) The report from Ibn ʿUmar and ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb performing wuḍūʾ after nosebleeds. Cited by the Ḥanafī school as evidence of Companion practice on the matter.

Neither report establishes the ruling unambiguously. The disagreement, therefore, is not between schools that ignore evidence and schools that do not — it is between schools that weight different evidence differently and apply different uṣūlī methodology to the reconciliation.

The four madhāhib المذاهب الأربعة

ḤanafīحنفيMinority across Ummah
Yes — flowing blood breaks wuḍūʾ. Any najis substance that flows from the body — blood, pus, vomit if a mouthful — invalidates. Stagnant blood at the wound site does not.
Strongest evidence: Reports of ʿUmar and Ibn ʿUmar renewing wuḍūʾ after nosebleeds; analogy (qiyās) from the impurity of exits through the sabīlayn.

Muʿtamad text: al-Hidāyah 1/15 · al-Marghīnānī (d. 593/1197).
MālikīمالكيMajority across Ummah
No — exit from other than the sabīlayn does not break wuḍūʾ. Bleeding, vomiting, and similar do not invalidate, regardless of quantity.
Strongest evidence: The practice (ʿamal) of the people of Madīnah; the cupping report of Anas; the principle that no authentic prophetic command exists to renew wuḍūʾ for bleeding.

Muʿtamad text: Mukhtaṣar Khalīl, p. 7 · Khalīl b. Isḥāq al-Jundī (d. 776/1374).
ShāfiʿīشافعيMajority across Ummah
No — only what exits the two designated passages breaks wuḍūʾ. Blood, vomit, and other body fluids from elsewhere have no effect on the state of purification.
Strongest evidence: Restrictive reading of the nawāqiḍ implied by Q 5:6; absence of any authentic, unambiguous prophetic statement on renewal for bleeding.

Muʿtamad text: Minhāj al-Ṭālibīn 1/23 · al-Nawawī (d. 676/1277).
ḤanbalīحنبليDifferentiated
Copious blood breaks; a small amount does not. The aẓhar (apparent) position in the madhhab; threshold is determined by ʿurf — what a person would describe as "noticeable" bleeding.
Strongest evidence: A hybrid synthesis — accepting the ʿUmar report for copious bleeding and the Anas cupping report for incidental bleeding. Reconciles both bodies of evidence rather than rejecting either.

Muʿtamad text: al-Mughnī 1/243 · Ibn Qudāmah (d. 620/1223).

History of the ikhtilāf تاريخ الخلاف

The disagreement is documented from the earliest period. Ibn al-Mundhir (d. 318/930) lists it in al-Awsaṭ as a known point of difference between the people of the Ḥijāz and the people of Iraq — the Ḥijāzīs being inclined to non-invalidation, the Iraqis to invalidation. This regional fault line is preserved in the later madhhab structure.

Modern fatwa bodies have not produced consensus across schools: IslamQA (Salafi) inclines toward the Shāfiʿī view IslamQA 2123; the Permanent Committee historically followed the same; AMJA (multi-madhhab) presents the disagreement without adjudicating. The Twelver Shīʿī ruling diverges from all four Sunni positions and is not in scope on this page; see comparison/wudu-shia.

Practical application تطبيق

Isnad will not select a school on the reader's behalf. The orientation of this page is descriptive: it tells you what each madhhab holds and why. If you have set a madhhab preference in your account, the page above will be ordered with your school first — but the others remain visible. Schools are reordered, never hidden.

For a personalised ruling — one that takes account of your circumstances and locale — ask a qualified scholar of your madhhab. The "ask a scholar" handoff in the chat will route you to a named institution that publicly accepts questions in your school.