those stomach contents and fetal membranes did not invalidate the prayer. As I see it, this can only be understood in one of three ways:

Either it is said that this ruling was abrogated. By abrogation, I mean that the ruling no longer applies, even if it had not been established by an explicit pronouncement, since this occurred in Mecca. This is a very weak interpretation, for abrogation may only be asserted with certainty; conjecture does not establish it.

Moreover, we have no knowledge that avoiding impurities was initially not obligatory and subsequently became obligatory. This is especially pertinent to those who argue that avoiding impurities is obligatory on the basis of Allah Most High’s words:

“And purify your garments.”

Surah al-Muddaththir was among the earliest revelations. According to their position, therefore, purification from impurities was among the earliest obligations. So much for that interpretation.

Or it is said that this proves the permissibility of carrying an impure substance while praying. Yet most of those who disagree on the issue under discussion do not hold this view, so their position requires them to set this hadith aside. Furthermore, this view is weak because it contradicts the authentic hadiths concerning menstrual blood and other hadiths. Nor do I know of any disagreement among them that this is disliked and that repeating a prayer performed in that condition is preferable. So much for that interpretation.

The only remaining explanation is that the stomach contents and fetal membranes are not impure but pure, since these are the stomach contents of an animal whose meat may be eaten. This is the conclusion that must be accepted, Allah Most High willing, given the many scholars who hold it and the clear evidence supporting it. The invalidity of the first two interpretations makes this the only remaining conclusion.

(If it is objected, “But the fetal membranes were among it, and they may contain blood,” we reply: It is possible that