Do blood, vomit, pus or continuous discharge break wudu?
Source-verified English summary of the Shaykh’s ruling. The original Arabic source has been verified. Independent scholarly review is shown separately when completed; refer to the original Arabic source for the Shaykh’s complete wording.
Review status: Independent scholarly review pending.
Short answer
In this later answer, Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen says that blood, vomit and pus coming from elsewhere on the body do not break wudu. He also explains that after reviewing the scholarly discussion he changed his earlier view on certain continuous discharges, considering the stronger view to be that a persistent discharge does not repeatedly invalidate wudu by itself unless another separate nullifier occurs.
What does that mean?
Blood, vomit and pus
The Shaykh’s position here is that these do not invalidate wudu when they come from somewhere other than the normal front and back passages.
A later refinement on continuous discharge
He explicitly says he reconsidered his earlier position and found the view that persistent discharge does not repeatedly nullify wudu to be stronger and easier where the evidence is not clear.
Try this scenario
A person has a persistent discharge that would make repeated wudu extremely difficult.
In this later answer, the Shaykh says the continuous condition itself does not keep cancelling the wudu; a separate nullifier still would.
What can change the answer?
- Is the discharge continuous or occasional?
- Did another clear nullifier such as wind occur?
- Are you comparing this answer with an earlier statement from the Shaykh?
Quick check
- Does the Shaykh say blood or vomit breaks wudu in this answer?
- NoHe explicitly says they do not.
- Does he acknowledge that he changed an earlier view about some continuous discharge?
- YesHe says he reconsidered the scholarly discussion and changed his earlier position.
Why?
The Shaykh explains both his general principle on bodily discharge and his own later reconsideration regarding persistent conditions.
Recognised differences
The Shaykh explicitly mentions scholarly disagreement and records a change from his own earlier position concerning some continuous discharges.
Check you understood
Reveal the answer and explanation
Correct answer: The later revision and the earlier context
Transparent chronology matters when presenting a scholar’s rulings.
Original source
حكم الخارج من البدن غير البول والغائط بالنسبة لنقض الوضوء
- Shaykh
- Muhammad ibn Salih al-‘Uthaymeen رحمه الله
- Series
- لقاءات الباب المفتوح
- Reference
- لقاء الباب المفتوح [214]
- Review status
- Official Arabic source verified; independent scholarly review pending
Original Arabic question
هل خروج الدم عن طريق الرعاف أو الجرح من الجسم ينقض الوضوء؟
Source-verified English summary of the Shaykh’s ruling. The original Arabic source has been verified. Independent scholarly review is shown separately when completed; refer to the original Arabic source for the Shaykh’s complete wording.
You might also wonder
- What should I do if I keep doubting that urine came out after wudu?
- Does cream or oil on the skin prevent wudu?
- Does touching a non-mahram woman break wudu?
- Does touching something impure break wudu?
- What do ‘elbows’, ‘ankles’ and ‘wrists’ mean in the rulings of wudu?
- How do I stop repeating wudu because of constant doubts?