The scholars have differed over whether impurity discharged from somewhere other than the front and rear passages—such as through a wound, venesection, cupping, a nosebleed, or vomiting—invalidates ablution. Mālik and al-Shāfi‘ī hold that it does not, while Abū Hanīfah and Ahmad hold that it does. Ahmad, however, stipulates that the quantity must be substantial.

They have also differed over whether touching women or touching the penis invalidates ablution. Abū Hanīfah holds that it does not, while al-Shāfi‘ī holds that it does. Mālik distinguishes between touching with desire and touching without it, though reports from him differ as to whether this distinction applies to touching the penis. Reports from Ahmad also differ: one agrees with Abū Hanīfah that none of these acts invalidates ablution, while two other reports agree with Mālik and al-Shāfi‘ī respectively.

The early Muslims differed over whether ablution is obligatory after eating food cooked over fire. They also differed concerning laughing aloud during prayer; Abū Hanīfah holds that it invalidates ablution. Those who maintain that these things do not invalidate ablution have two views on whether performing ablution after them is recommended. Both views are found in the school of Ahmad and elsewhere.

The stronger view in all these cases is that they do not invalidate ablution, but that performing ablution after them is recommended. Whoever prays without renewing ablution after them has a valid prayer, while whoever performs ablution does what is better. The evidence for this is discussed at length elsewhere. Nevertheless, they all direct that impurity be removed. However, if the impurity is blood and amounts to more than a quarter of