(50) p. 9 "Aboo Hurairah did not see anything wrong in a drop or two of blood ..." Reported by Ibn Abee Shaibah in his Musannaf and its isnaad is weak due to Shareek ibn ’Abdillaah al-Qaadee – who is da’eef due to his weak memory. (The position that blood is taahir and does not break wudoo is the position of al-Bukhaaree and Ibn Hazm).

(52) That normal blood, blood of animals and blood of menstruation are all the same.

This is incorrect due to two reasons:

That there is no proof for this from the Book or Sunnah – and the principle is that things are pure unless declared impure in a text.

That it contradicts what is established in the Sunnah.

1. As for the blood of humans – then that is shown to be pure by the hadeeth of the Ansaaree who prayed at night and was struck by arrows and continued praying even though his blood flowed. [Reported in mu’allaq form by al-Bukhaaree and connected by Ahmad and others – Saheeh Abee Daawood, 193]
2. As for the blood of animals – then that is also pure as shown by the authentic narration that Ibn Mas’ood some camels and ??? became smeared with their blood and excrement – then the ’Iqaamah was given and he prayed without making wudoo.
3. Reported by ’Abdur-Razzaaq in his musannaf (1/125), Ibn Abee Shaibah (1/392) and at-Tabaraanee in al-Mu’jamul-Kabeer 9/283) with Saheeh isnaad from him.

(52) His making distinction between a small and a large amount of blood.

This has no proof from the sunnah – rather it is negated by the hadeeth of the Ansaaree. The Athar from Aboo Hurairah is Da’eef as has preceded. (This distinction is rebutted by Ibn Hazm in al-Muhallaa’ and by Ibnul-’Arabee and al-Qurtubee in their tafseers).

(53) "Vomiting of a person ... there is agreement amongst the scholars ..." He does not mention any proof.

Scholars are not agreed in that – that the vomit of a muslim is pure is the saying of Ibn Hazm (al-muhallaa, 1/183), ash-Shawkaanee in ad-Dururul-Bahiyyah and Saddeeq Hasan Khaan in his Sharh (1/18-20).

"… but a small amount of vomit ... and .... are overlooked." He doesn’t bring any proof.

(54) p. 12 "Alcohol... some scholars say that it is pure." In order that their saying should not be regarded as unimportant their names should be mentioned, amongst them are,

1. Rabee’ah ibn Abee ’Abdir-Rahmaan, known as Rabee’atur-Raee, al-Haafiz says of him in at-Tahdheeb,"He met some of the Sahaabah and greater taabi’een, and he gave Fatwaas in al-Madeenah, where the people used to turn to him, and his circle was attended by forty men wearing imaamah – and Maalik learnt from him.
2. al-Laith ibn Sa’d al-Misree, al-Faqeeh, the famous imaam, the great scholars acknowledged his excellence – amongst them Imaam Maalik in the letter which he wrote to him. And ash-Shaafi’ee said of him, "He was a greater scholar than Maalik, but his companions did not carry his renown.
3. Ismaa’eel ibn Yahyaa al-Muzaanee, companion of Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee. He was a mujtahid imaam.

And this is the position of many other scholars of later times from Baghdaad and other towns – they hold that alcohol is pure – and only drinking it is what is forbidden (see Tafseerul-Qurtubee, 6/88).

(55) p 16 3^rd paragraph, "If a person finishes the Prayer ..."

Its proof is the hadeeth of Aboo Sa’eed al-Khudree, "That while Allaah’s Messenger, sallallaahu ’alaihi wa sallaam, was praying with his Companions – he suddenly took off his shoes and placed them on his left – so when the people saw that they threw off their shoes, so when the Prophet, sallallaahu ’alaihi wa sallaam, finished his prayer he said, "Why did you throw off your shoes?" They said, "We saw you throw off your shoes so we threw our shoes off." So Allaah’s Messenger, sallallaahu ’alaihi wa sallaam, said, "Indeed Jibreel ’Alaihis-Salaam, came to me and informed me that my shoes contained impurity. And he said, "When one of you comes to the mosque then let him look, and if he finds any impurity or filth on his shoes, then let him wipe it and pray in them." Reported by Ahmad, Aboo Daawood and others with a saheeh isnaad, Al-Irwaa, 284.