Abu Dawud

Benefits and Issues:
➊ From this hadith, it is understood that if blood flows from a wound, it does not break ablution (wudu), nor does it invalidate the prayer. Those who hold the opinion that ablution is broken by the flowing of blood, they deduce this from the blood of menstruation (hayd) and irregular bleeding (istihada), and from the narrations regarding nosebleed (naksir), in which nosebleed is also described as something that breaks ablution. However, the status of menstrual or istihada blood is entirely different from the blood that flows from a general wound, because their rulings are different. Moreover, that blood «سبيلين» comes out from the "private parts," which by consensus breaks ablution, whereas the blood that comes out from wounds does not have this status. That is why the noble Companions (radi Allahu anhum) used to get wounded in battles and would still perform prayers in that state, but the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not prohibit the wounded Companions from performing prayer. This is evidence that blood flowing from general wounds does not break ablution. Furthermore, the narrations regarding performing ablution due to nosebleed are all weak and not valid as proof. For details, see: [عون المعبود]
➋ According to the arrangement of Imam Bukhari rahimahullah, the expedition of Dhat al-Riqa‘ took place after Khaybar.
➌ One reason for its naming is that on this occasion, the Mujahideen, due to their feet being wounded, had wrapped bandages. Besides this, some other reasons are also mentioned.
➍ Arranging for guards during jihad in particular, and on other occasions in general, is not against reliance upon Allah (tawakkul), but is Sunnah and an essential part of the wisdom of warfare.
➎ The Mujahideen of Islam, even during jihad, would spend their time in valuable deeds, as this Ansari did by starting prayer and recitation of the Qur’an while on guard duty, and the surah that this Mujahid was reciting was Surah al-Kahf.
➏ Love for prayer and the Qur’an was the distinguishing honor and virtue of the noble Companions.

The Ruling on Blood in General

The blood of menstruation (hayd) is impure (najis).
The evidences for the impurity and filthiness of all other types of blood besides menstrual blood are neither clear nor strong; rather, they are inconsistent and weak. Therefore, it is better to revert to the original ruling (of purity) unless a clear proof is found. Furthermore, it is not correct to declare blood impure by reasoning from this verse:
«قُل لَّا أَجِدُ فِي مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ مُحَرَّمًا عَلَىٰ طَاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ إِلَّا أَن يَكُونَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَمًا مَّسْفُوحًا أَوْ لَحْمَ خِنزِيرٍ فَإِنَّهُ رِجْسٌ أَوْ فِسْقًا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ ۚ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلَا عَادٍ فَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ» ‎ [6-الأنعام:145]
because this verse does not clarify whether the word «رجس» refers only to the flesh of swine or to all other things as well. On the contrary, sound and strong evidences establish that all other types of blood are pure.

➊ The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam descended into a mountain pass and said to his companions radi Allahu anhum: “Who will guard us tonight?” So, one man from the Muhajirun and one from the Ansar stood up. They spent the night at the mouth of the pass, dividing the night between them for keeping watch. The Muhajir slept, and the Ansari stood up to pray. Suddenly, a man from the enemy saw the Ansari and shot an arrow at him. The Ansari pulled out the arrow and continued his prayer. Then the enemy shot a second arrow, and the Ansari did the same. Then he shot a third arrow, and the Ansari pulled it out, performed bowing and prostration, and completed his prayer. Then he woke his companion. When his companion saw him in such a (bloody) state, he said: “Why did you not wake me when he first shot you?” He replied: “I was reciting a surah which I did not wish to interrupt.” [أبو داود 198] 1

➋ Imam Hasan rahimahullah states:
«مَا زَالَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ يُصَلُّونَ فِي جِرَاحَاتِهِمْ»
“Muslims have always prayed in their wounds.”
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah narrated this in suspended form. [صحيح بخاري قبل الحديث 176]
Whereas Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah rahimahullah narrated it with a sound chain of transmission. [فتح الباري 281/1]

(Al-Albani rahimahullah) This hadith (i.e., the story in which the Companion was struck by arrows) [أبو داود 198] is considered marfu‘ in ruling, because it is ordinarily impossible that this would not have reached the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. If a large amount of blood invalidated (the prayer), then the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam would have clarified it, because «تاخير البيان عن وقت الحاجة لا يجوز» “It is not permissible to delay clarification at the time of need,” as is well known in the science of legal theory (usul al-fiqh). And if, hypothetically, this matter had been hidden from the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, it could not have been hidden from Allah, for nothing in the heavens or the earth is hidden from Him. Therefore, if blood invalidated (the prayer) or was impure, Allah would have revealed it to His Prophet, as is clear and not hidden from anyone. Imam Bukhari rahimahullah also holds this view, as his narration of some of the aforementioned reports in suspended form is evidence for this. [تمام المنة ص /52]

(Ibn Hazm rahimahullah) also holds this view. [المحلي 255/1]

From a jurisprudential perspective, equating menstrual blood with other types of blood is clearly mistaken for two reasons:

➊ There is no evidence for this in the Book or the Sunnah, and the original ruling is freedom from obligation unless there is a text.

➋ It is contrary to the Sunnah, as has been clarified in the aforementioned hadith of the Ansari Companion (regarding human blood). In addition, regarding animal blood, it is authentically narrated from Ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu that he slaughtered a camel, and its blood and the contents of its stomach got on him. Meanwhile, the prayer was established, and he prayed without performing ablution (wudu). [ابن أبى شيبة 392/1] 2

(Shawkani rahimahullah) It is not correct to make an analogy between menstrual blood and other types of blood, nor is there any explicit evidence for the impurity of other types of blood. [السيل الجرار 40/1]

(Siddiq Hasan Khan rahimahullah) The evidences for the impurity of all other types of blood are varied and inconsistent. [الروضة الندية 82/1]

The jurists have differed on this issue.

SA (Qurtubi rahimahullah) There is consensus among the scholars on the impurity of blood. [تفسير قرطبي 221/2] EA
In response, Shaykh al-Albani rahimahullah writes that this is questionable, as the hadith of Ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu has just been cited. [التعليقات الرضية على الروضة الندية 110/1]

SA (Hanafis) Blood is filthy like urine and wine. If it soils the garment in an amount greater than a dirham, prayer is not valid in it; but if it is a dirham or less, the prayer is valid, because it is such a small amount that it is impossible to avoid. [عمدة القاري 903/1] EA
They have reasoned from narrations attributed to Ali radi Allahu anhu and Ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu, but those are weak. [تحفة الأحوذي 447/1]

(Ahmad rahimahullah, Ishaq rahimahullah) Even if more than a dirham’s amount of blood soils the garment, the prayer does not need to be repeated (because it is not impure), as the aforementioned hadiths testify. [تحفة الأحوذي 447/1]

(The preferred view) The position of Imam Ahmad rahimahullah is the preferred one, because the aforementioned explicit evidences require it.

1 [صحيح، صحيح أبو داود 193، كتاب الطهارة : باب الوضوء من الدم، أبو داود 198، احمد 343/3، دارقطني 322/1، ابن خزيمة 36، حاكم 1571، بيهقي 140/1]

2 [صحيح : تمام المنه ص /52، عبد الرزاق 125/1، ابن أبى شيبة 392/1، طبراني كبير 284/9، الجعديات للبغوي 887/2]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Benefits:

This hadith is evidence that the emission of blood from any part of the body, except the private parts, does not invalidate ablution (wudu).

Abu Tayyib Shams al-Haq Azimabadi writes: This hadith clearly indicates two things:

➊ The majority of scholars hold the view that the emission of blood from the body, except from the two private parts (sabilayn), does not invalidate ablution, whether the blood flows or not. And this is the preferred view. Muhammad bin Isma'il Amir Yamani writes in Subul al-Salam that it is the opinion of Malik, al-Shafi'i, and a group of the Companions and Followers (tabi'in) that the emission of blood from the body, except from the two private parts, does not invalidate ablution. Hafiz Siraj al-Din ibn al-Mulaqqin al-Badr al-Muniri states that al-Bayhaqi has transmitted from Mu'adh radi Allahu anhu that he said: "It is not obligatory to perform ablution due to nosebleed or vomiting." It is narrated from Ibn al-Musayyib that when he had a nosebleed, he wiped his nose with a cloth and then performed prayer. It is also narrated from Ibn Mas'ud, Salim bin Abdullah, Tawus, Hasan al-Basri, and Qasim that they did not perform ablution after blood was emitted.

➋ The blood that comes out from wounds is pure (tahir), and there is a concession for the wounded (to pray in blood-stained clothes). This is the madhhab of the Malikis, and this is the prevalent view. [عون المعبود: 203/1، 204]

Further Evidence:

➊ Miswar bin Makhramah narrates that on the night Umar radi Allahu anhu was wounded, he went to him that same night and woke him for the morning prayer. Upon this, Umar radi Allahu anhu said: "Alright (I will get up)," and said: "Whoever abandons prayer has no share in Islam." Then Umar radi Allahu anhu performed the prayer while blood was flowing from his wound.

[موطا امام مالك، باب العمل فيمن غلبه الدم من جرح اور عاف: 51، ارواء الغليل: 209، اسناده صحيح]

➋ In Sahih al-Bukhari, there are some statements transmitted which are evidence that the emission of blood from the body does not invalidate ablution.

1. Hasan al-Basri rahimahullah says: "The people of Islam have always performed prayer in their wounds."

2. Tawus, Muhammad bin Ali, Ata bin Abi Rabah, and the scholars of Hijaz state that it is not obligatory to perform ablution due to the emission of blood.

3. Ibn Umar radi Allahu anhu cleaned a boil and blood came out from it, but he did not perform ablution.

4. Ibn Abi Awfa radi Allahu anhu spat blood during prayer (and continued the prayer without performing a new ablution).

5. Ibn Umar radi Allahu anhu and Hasan al-Basri rahimahullah say regarding the one who undergoes cupping (hijama): "Ablution is not obligatory upon him; rather, he should wash the place where the cupping was done."

[صحيح بخاري، كتاب الوضوء، باب من لم ير الوضوء الا من المخرجين من القبل والدبر]