then it is like vomit; but if it is below the stomach, it is like feces. This was the view preferred by Ibn ʿAqīl (d. 513 AH). (1) This is a sound view, for if one vomits from the stomach, his ablution is not invalidated according to the preponderant view; or it is invalidated if the vomit is substantial, according to the well-known position of the madhhab.

Excluded from the above is one whose state of ritual impurity is continual. His ablution is not invalidated by its occurrence, such as one afflicted with urinary incontinence, continual passing of wind, or fecal incontinence. Such a person has a particular method of purification, which will come, Allah willing. (2) .....

The apparent meaning of his words, “if it is urine or feces,” is that wind does not invalidate ablution if it emerges from this opening made in place of the original outlet, even if it has an offensive odor. This is the position adopted by the author, and it is the madhhab.

Some scholars held that it does invalidate ablution, (3) because if the original outlet is blocked and another is opened, the latter takes the ruling of the private part with regard to what emerges from it, but not with regard to touching it. Touching it does not invalidate ablution, as will come, Allah willing. (4)

Or a substantial amount of impure matter other than these two ...

His statement, “or a substantial amount of impure matter other than these two,” means: or if it is a substantial amount of impure matter other than urine and feces. Thus, the author restricts matters other than urine and feces by two conditions:

First: that it be substantial.

Second: that it be impure.

He did not restrict urine and feces by the conditions of being substantial and impure, because both are impure, and because both a small and a large amount of them invalidate ablution.