Ruling of blood in saliva

Imam al-Atqānī (d.758 AH) states that Wuḍū becomes invalid with the emergence of any impurity from the body, establishing this as a general principle. He explains that the exiting of impurity affects the removal of purity, as both cannot exist simultaneously¹. The presence of Najāsah (impurity) removes purity from a place, and when Najāsah is removed, then purity returns. Hence, when one has purity, he can engage in acts of worship. Imam al-Asmandī (d. 552 AH) explains that the emergence of Najāsah necessitates Wuḍū, as the presence of impurity is contrary to the complete veneration and reverence required when worshipping Allah. Therefore, the impediment to such veneration must be removed, and this is achieved through purification.²

Imam al-Marghīnānī (d.593 AH) articulates an ‘Asl (fundamental principle): when blood exits the body and reaches a place which carries the ruling of purification, Wuḍū is nullified.³ An example of this ‘Asl is noted by Imam al-Sighnāqī (d.711 AH) who gives the example of an ulcer within the eye: if the blood flows from it to another part of the eye, Wuḍū is not invalidated, because it has not reached a place that is required to be washed during Wuḍū or Ghusl. Whereas if blood were to flow from the head into the nasal passage, then Wuḍū would be nullified.⁴ The difference between the two scenarios as highlighted by Imam al-Bābirtī (d.786 AH), is that rinsing the inner eyes is not subject to the rule of purification in Ghusl (ritual bath) and Wuḍū. However, in the case of the nose, the blood has reached the nasal passage, and since rinsing the nose is obligatory in Ghusl, the blood has reached a place that is required to wash, resulting in the Wuḍū being nullified.⁵

Imam al-Sughdī (d.461 AH) elaborates that amongst the invalidators of Wuḍū is the exiting of impurity which exits from a place other than the passageways of Ḥadath (ritual impurity). He brings the case of blood in the mouth. Even though the inner body is the Maḥall (area) of blood yet: Wuḍū is invalidated if blood overwhelms the saliva due to impurity exiting.⁶ Qāḍī Khān (d.592 AH)⁷ explains that for Wuḍū to break, impurity must exit with a flow. Simply seeing exposed blood does not invalidate Wuḍū unless it flows out, as the body is a vessel of flowing blood: hence, unless flowing of impurity occurs, Wuḍū is intact, a point also echoed by Imam al-Sarūjī (d.710 AH)⁸.

In rationalising the invalidation of Wuḍū from blood in the mouth, Imam al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) argued that the blood needs to have flowed independently with its own force – which shows Ghalabah (preponderance), a view also held by Imam al-Kāsānī (d.587 AH)⁹ and Imam ibn Māzah al-Bukhārī (d.616 AH)¹⁰. Using this idea, they explain the reverse scenario: when saliva dominates the blood, Wuḍū is not broken, as the blood did not exit independently, rather, it was carried out by the saliva.¹¹ Since the substance emerging is saliva which is a pure substance, its discharge is not considered as a Ḥadath, and Imam al-Samarqandī (d.540 AH) has mentioned Ijmāʿ (consensus) on this matter.¹² Imam Ibn ʿĀbidīn al-Shāmī (d.1252 AH) gives a practical guideline: If the spittle appears red, this indicates that the blood is either equal to or more than the saliva, hence Wuḍū is invalidated. If the spittle appears yellowish or only slightly tinged, this indicates to the saliva being dominant, leading to Wuḍū being intact.¹³

However, where the quantity of saliva and blood is equal, the ruling is established on the basis of Istiḥsān (principal exception of the law), as cited by Imam Al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH). Under the general Qiyās (logic of the law), Wuḍūʾ would not be invalidated where saliva is predominant or where the two are equal. This is because blood is legally treated as effective only where it is predominant. Such predominance is determined through Ghalabah. Where no Ghalabah exists, the blood is treated as Ka Al-Maʿdūm (as though non-existent), and consequently no legitimately effective Najāsah (impurity) is recognised. The ruling based on Istiḥsān, however, departs from this general Qiyās and Aṣl on the basis of Iḥtiyāṭ (precaution). Although the original state is one of purity, and certainty cannot ordinarily be removed merely by doubt as to whether Wuḍūʾ has been invalidated, Istiḥsān requires that Wuḍūʾ be regarded as broken in this instance. Imam al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) explains that since the saliva flows by its own force, an equal quantity of blood mixed with it is likewise treated as having flowed. He further states that adopting Iḥtiyāṭ in such a case is preferable, based on the statement of the Prophet ﷺ. Imām Abū Naṣr Al-Aqṭaʿ (d. 474 AH)¹⁴ further supports this approach through a legal principle: where a matter is capable of both permissibility and prohibition, and both rulings remain reasonably possible, giving precedence to prohibition is more appropriate as a matter of precaution.

Imam Muḥammad al-Shaybānī (d.189 AH) mentions this scenario in his magnum opus, and clarifies that he personally recommends that Wuḍū be repeated, not because it is necessarily obligatory, but because this is the Iḥtiyāṭ which ensures confidence in one’s ritual state¹⁵. Imam al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) adds that the language used here by Imām Muḥammad al-Shaybānī (d.189 AH) shows that it isn’t obligatory, which some earlier scholars.¹⁶ However, he explains that the Mashāyikh (scholars) have made it mandatory, which has also been cited by Imam al-Ḥaṣkafī (d.1088 AH)¹⁷ and others.

Hence, if saliva is predominant over the blood, a fresh Wuḍūʾ will not be required. However, if the blood is predominant, or if the blood and saliva are equal in quantity, a fresh Wuḍūʾ will be required.