Thus, had it been something that nullified ablution or was itself impure, Allah would certainly have revealed that to His Prophet ﷺ—an obvious point that escapes no one.

Al-Bukhari adopted this view, as is evident from his suspending some of the reports cited earlier and from the conclusion he states in Fath al-Bārī; it is likewise the position of Ibn Ḥazm, 1/255.

2. From the juristic standpoint the discussion includes two matters:

First: treating menstrual blood as identical to every other type of blood—human blood or the blood of animals whose flesh is lawful to eat. This is plainly erroneous for two reasons:

1. There is no proof for it in the Sunnah, still less in the Qur’an, and the basic rule is non-liability (al-aṣl barāʾat al-dhimmah) unless a revealed text establishes otherwise.

2. It contradicts what is authentically established in the Sunnah. With respect to human blood, the hadith of the Anṣārī who continued his prayer while blood streamed from him has just been mentioned.
   As for animal blood, it is soundly reported from Ibn Masʿūd (Allah be pleased with him) that he slaughtered a camel, and its blood and offal splattered over him; when the prayer was called he prayed without renewing his ablution.
   ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrates it in al-Muṣannaf 1/125; Ibn Abī Shaybah 1/392; al-Ṭabarānī in al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr 9/284 with a sound chain from him; and al-Baghawī records it in al-Jaʿdiyyāt 2/887, no. 2503.
   Al-Baghawī then relates from Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī: “I would not mind slaughtering a camel and being smeared with its dung and blood, then performing the prayer without touching water”—but its isnād is weak.

Second: his distinction between a small quantity of blood and a large quantity. Although some earlier imams preceded him in this claim, there is no evidence for it in the Sunnah; indeed, the hadith of the Anṣārī clearly refutes it. The author cited nothing for this distinction except the previously mentioned report of Abū Hurayrah, whose weakness you have already seen.