His reported positions concerning liquids other than water differ: should they be treated like water, or should they not, as Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī hold? Or should a distinction be drawn between water and other liquids, such as grape vinegar? Three positions are reported from him.

These positions clearly represent a middle course in terms of both transmitted evidence and reasoning, although Ahmad’s position that agrees with Mālik’s is stronger in evidence.

Another principle concerns those parts of carrion that contain no moisture, such as hair, nails, and feathers. Scholars hold three positions on whether these are pure or impure:

The first is that they are all impure. This is al-Shāfiʿī’s position and one position reported from Ahmad, on the grounds that they are parts of carrion.

The second is that they are all pure. This is Abū Hanīfa’s position and one position within Ahmad’s school, on the grounds that impurity is caused by bodily fluids, which are found only in parts through which blood flows. This is why creatures without flowing blood are deemed pure: parts containing no moisture are treated like creatures without flowing blood.

The third is that parts capable of sensation, such as bone, are impure, being treated like dried flesh; whereas parts that merely grow, such as hair, are not impure, being treated like plants.

Another principle concerns purification from states of ritual impurity, namely ablution and the full ritual bath. In their approach to these, the jurists of hadith have applied Sunnah practices not found among others.