The blood of humans and animals and their excretions: Are they ritually impure? Does the flow of blood invalidate the prayer?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : Regarding the blood.

The Shaykh : The blood? Animal blood or human blood?

The questioner : Human or animal... some jurists... ritual impurity.

The Shaykh : Even if.

The questioner : The Hanafis, and it is reported from the Hanafis, and Allah knows best... it is intrinsic impurity, not conceptual impurity... blood on a human body, and it is necessary to...

The Shaykh : Ghusl.

The questioner : Yes, and also... the excretions of animals; are they...?

The Shaykh : The issue, my brother, has a detailed distinction between blood and blood. The blood of a human is not ritually impure. The blood of animals whose meat is eaten is likewise. The remaining types of blood are ritually impure, including the flowing blood.
As for the fact that human blood is not ritually impure, that is based on a set of evidence, among which is the hadith of Jabir in this chapter. Jabir said: We went on an expedition in which we captured a woman from among the polytheists, and her husband was absent from the town, from the village. When he came and was informed of the news, he swore that he would not enter the village until he took revenge for her from the companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). So he followed their tracks until he caught up with them in the evening in a valley, and they descended into it. Then the Messenger (peace be upon him) said to those around him: . Two young men from the Ansar stood up, one from the Aws and the other from the Khazraj; they said: We are here, O Messenger of Allah. He said to them: . So they set out, and the polytheist was waiting for such an opportunity. They agreed to take turns guarding; one would guard the first half of the night while the other slept, then the first would sleep and the other would guard. So the man placed his side there, and the first stood up to guard. The affair of the true believing Muslim is to seize opportunities to gather as much obedience and worship of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) as possible. So it pleased him to combine guarding with prayer, and he stood up to pray. The polytheist saw the target standing before him, so he took a spear from its sheath, placed it on his bow, and shot it at him. He placed it in his leg.
This is what Jabir said: he placed it in his leg, an expression indicating the precision of the shot, as if it was placed there deliberately.
The man did nothing but throw it to the ground. The blood was flowing from him, and he continued in his prayer. When the polytheist saw that his opponent was still standing, he knew that he had not hit a vital spot. He shot the second arrow and did with it what he had done with the first, and so the third. Throughout this, the blood was flowing from him; until he prayed two rak'ahs. Then—and here the narrator is uncertain—his companion woke up, or he woke him up. When he saw the blood on him, the matter shocked him, so he asked him about the news. He said: I was in a surah I was reciting, and by Him in whose hand is my soul, had I not feared that I would neglect a frontier post that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had placed me in charge of guarding, my soul would have been in it. Meaning, he remembered while praying and having been shot that he had a duty, which the Messenger (peace be upon him) had ordered him to perform, and it is a very sensitive and important duty; because the entire army, including the Messenger (peace be upon him), was sleeping. If he neglected this duty, the enemy might ambush them and destroy their strength. Therefore, this is from the intellect of the Companions, the intellect that differs from the Sufi intellect that surrenders to what? To its desires, even in the obedience of Allah, and does not conduct this judgment: should I continue in the prayer or not? Should I cut the prayer as best I can so that I fully perform the duty that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered me to do? He said: By Him in whose hand is my soul, had I not feared that I would neglect a frontier post that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had placed me in charge of guarding, my soul would have been in it; meaning: my soul would have perished in this prayer. I would continue in the prayer, and the enemy would continue shooting at me, and the outcome would be death, and the effect of this death would be the loss of the guard, and the polytheist would succeed in killing whoever he wished. Therefore, he says: I am tired of it, I cut the prayer, I settled for two rak'ahs.
The story ends here. The point is that this man, as they say today in modern expression: the one who graduated from the school of the Messenger (peace be upon him), what did he learn in this school? Does blood break the wudu? If he had learned this, he would have cut the prayer at the first shot; because now let us assume a Hanafi was hit with such a calamity, what would he do? He would continue in the prayer? The prayer is invalid, it is automatically over. But this is proof that the Companion was not studying this type of fiqh, he was studying a different type of fiqh, of the type ; therefore it was reported from al-Hasan al-Basri that he said: "The companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) continued to pray in their wounds."
As a Syrian saying goes: "The one who wants to play with the cat must expect scratches." So the one who wants to strive in the path of Allah and encounter the disbelievers will naturally be hit with wounds and blood will flow from him. If every time blood flowed from him he had to go perform wudu, this is a matter that does not align with the principle of . This is the evidence regarding the blood of the Muslim human.
As for the animals whose meat is eaten, before I mention the Salafi evidence, I want to remind you of a fiqh rule that covers these bloods and those as well, which is that the original state of things is purity. And the one who claims in a branch a contrary to this original state is not permitted to do so except with compelling evidence for him and others to leave this original state in this branch. So this original state is agreed upon by the scholars of the Muslims: the original state of things is purity. So the one who says: Yes, the original state of things is purity, but the blood of a human or the blood of an animal whose meat is eaten is ritually impure; we say: , and this does not exist. But by way of voluntary extra, we volunteer and say: In addition to the fact that the original state of things is purity; this is a hadith that occurred in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him), clear evidence that the Companions did not believe and did not learn from the Messenger that human blood is ritually impure.
Here the discussion takes place between the Hanafis and the Shafi'is, and each ends up with his opinion. And my Lord (Blessed and Exalted is He) inspired me long ago, and I am still repeating this; because I have not found anything that contradicts it; to give preference to the argument of the Shafi'is over the Hanafis. What do the Hanafis say in response to the Shafi'is when they use this as evidence? The Hanafis say: Yes, this does not contain that the Messenger (peace be upon him) became aware of this incident and approved the Companions for it. If he had become aware and approved it, it would have been an argument. But the hadith does not contain anything of this. Indeed, it does not contain anything of this.
And such a discussion is in another issue similar to it entirely in that the Shafi'is used an athar as evidence, and the Hanafis answered that the Messenger did not have news of it; it is the issue of the one who is praying the obligatory prayer following the one who is praying the voluntary prayer, the one who is praying the obligatory prayer following the one who is praying the voluntary prayer; the Shafi'is permit it, the Hanafis say: No, this is from the category of building the strong upon the weak, and this is not valid, a specific Hanafi philosophy. The Shafi'is argued against them with the hadith of al-Bukhari that Mu'adh ibn Jabal used to pray the last night prayer behind the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), then he would go to his people and pray the night prayer with them; . A clear text, the Hanafis say: It is not in this, rather the Messenger knew it and approved it. And the debate between the two groups ends here. These people argue with an athar; how do they refute the athar? With this claim; that it is not in it that the Messenger became aware of it.
I—Glorified and Exalted is He—was amazed when this thought crossed my mind: why do the Shafi'is not respond to these people with the same argument I am making now? I say to the Hanafis: If the Messenger did not actually become aware of it, then the Lord of the Messenger did become aware of it. And there is no doubt that the awareness of the Lord of the Messenger is far more important than the awareness of the Messenger. For what is the Messenger's function? It is conveying the message. So if the Lawgiver, who is the Lord of the worlds—Blessed and Exalted is He—we Hanafis, Shafi'is, Salafis, Khalafis, and so on, know with certainty that Allah became aware of this, is that not sufficient proof for you, rather than insisting that the Messenger must have become aware of it, when he has no power over the matter?
There is also another side discussion: How do you imagine a strange incident occurring in the camp of the Messenger, who is responsible for the camp both religiously and militarily, if you will, where the commander of the army does not know what happened to one of his men?

The questioner: ... in the guard duty ... .

The Shaykh: ... in the guard duty, performing a duty, yes.
It is almost impossible that the Messenger did not know this; therefore, we assume that he knew, and that he not only approved it but blessed it. So this contains a proof, and it is a valid proof, even if someone says that the Messenger did not become aware of it, because the Lord of the Messenger did become aware of it, and .
We return to the blood of animals whose meat is eaten. It is established in al-Tabarani's al-Mu'jam al-Kabir with a valid chain from 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that he slaughtered a camel, and his clothes and body were stained with blood, then he stood up for prayer. So this is evidence from one of the most learned of the Companions that they, too, did not shy away from the blood of animals whose meat is eaten, even though the original ruling for it—as we said—is purity.
As for the other bloods, which are from animals whose eating is forbidden, they are of course ritually impure. Also, there is an exception for a specific blood from the human species, which is menstrual blood and irregular non-menstrual bleeding.
This is all I have in answer to the question.