Thus, the view that human blood is pure is a very strong one, because both the textual evidence and analogy support it.
Those who hold that it is impure, while excusing a small amount of it, have made two rulings:
A. Its impurity.
B. The excusing of a small amount of it.
Each of these two rulings requires evidence. So we say: first establish that blood is impure, then establish that a small amount is excused, for the basic principle is that no amount of an impure substance is excused. The one who holds it to be pure, however, requires only one proof: that blood is pure—and this has already preceded. (1)
If it is said: Fatimah, may Allah be pleased with her, washed the blood from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, during the Battle of Uhud (2), and this indicates that it is impure.
The response is from two angles:
The first is that this was merely an action, and an action in itself does not indicate obligation.
...
The second is that it may have been for the sake of cleanliness—to remove the blood from his face—for a person would not wish to have blood on his face, even if it were only a small amount. This possibility invalidates the argument.
From a pure animal …
His statement, “from a pure animal”: animals are of two types: pure and impure.
The pure animals are:
- Every animal lawful to eat, such as livestock, horses, gazelles, rabbits, and the like.