for several reasons.

The Prophet’s statement—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—to the woman experiencing non-menstrual bleeding,

“That is only bleeding from a vein, not menstruation,”

explains why a full ritual bath is not obligatory, not why ablution is obligatory. For the obligation to perform ablution is not specific to blood from veins. Rather, she had thought that this was menstrual blood, which necessitates a full ritual bath. The Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—therefore explained to her that this was not the menstrual blood that necessitates a full ritual bath: menstrual blood seeps from the womb like sweat, whereas this was blood from a vein that had burst in the womb. Bleeding from veins does not necessitate a full ritual bath. These matters are discussed at length elsewhere.

The purpose here is to point out the error of those who claim that the meanings or wording of the Sharia contain contradictions and allege that the Lawgiver treats like cases differently. Rather, our Prophet Muhammad—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—was sent with guidance and the religion of truth, with wisdom, justice, and mercy. He therefore distinguishes between two things in his rulings only when their attributes differ in a way that warrants that distinction, and treats two things alike only when their attributes are alike in a way that warrants equal treatment.

The stronger view is that ablution is not obligatory after touching the penis or women, the discharge of impurities from anywhere other than the two private passages, laughing aloud, or washing a deceased person. Those who consider it obligatory have no sound evidence; rather, the weightier evidence indicates that it is not obligatory. Nevertheless, there are clear grounds for considering it recommended. It is therefore recommended to perform ablution