According to the majority, if it were to separate from the martyr, it would be impure. According to the second view, however, it is pure because it is human blood.

The view that human blood is pure unless it emerges from either of the two private passages is a strong one. The evidence for this is as follows:

1. The basic principle concerning things is that they are pure unless evidence establishes their impurity. We do not know of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, commanding that blood be washed away except menstrual blood, despite the frequency of wounds, nosebleeds, cupping, and the like that affect people. Had blood been impure, he would have made this clear, since there is a need for such clarification.

2. Muslims have always prayed while bearing wounds received in battle, from which much blood may flow—an amount that is not excused. Yet no report has come from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, commanding that it be washed away, nor has it been reported that they took extreme precautions against it, such that whenever they found other clothes, they would seek to discard garments stained with blood.

It should not be said that most of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, were poor and might have possessed no clothing other than what they wore, especially since they would leave their lands for war and therefore had to keep their clothes on out of necessity.

For it may be said in response: had that been the case, we would have known that they hastened to wash it whenever they had a means of doing so—by reaching water, a town, or the like.

3. The parts of the human body are pure. Thus, if a person’s hand were cut off, it would be pure despite containing blood, perhaps a considerable amount of it. If a part of the human being that is considered an integral component of the body’s structure is pure, then the blood that separates from it and is replaced by more blood is even more deserving of being regarded as pure.