Bleeding from the nose does not invalidate wudoo’, according to the more correct of the two scholarly opinions.
This is the view of Maalik and al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on them) and it was narrated from a number of the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
The Hanafis and Hanbalis are of the view that it does invalidate wudoo’, and they discussed that at length. The Hanbalis stipulate that the blood that comes out should be a large amount, and what is regarded as a lot or a little depends on each person’s estimation.
Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Our view is that wudoo’ is not invalidated if something comes out of something other than the front and back passages, such as blood from cupping, vomit and blood from a nosebleed, whether it is a little or a lot. This was the view of Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbaas, Ibn Abi Awfa, Jaabir, Abu Hurayrah, ‘Aa’ishah, Ibn al-Musayyab, Saalim ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Umar, al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad, Tawoos, ‘Ata’, Mak-hool, Rabee’ah, Maalik, Abu Thawr and Dawood.
Al-Baghawi said: It is the view of most of the Sahaabah and Taabi’een.
Some said that wudoo’ must be done in all these cases. This is the view of Abu Haneefah, al-Thawri, al-Awzaa’i, Ahmad and Ishaaq. But they differed as to whether a distinction should be made between a small amount and a large amount. End quote from al-Majmoo’ (2/62).
Those who say that wudoo’ is invalidated in such cases quoted da’eef (weak) ahaadeeth as evidence, as al-Nawawi and others said. See question no. 45666.
The evidence for the correct view, which is that wudoo’ is not invalidated, is as follows:
1-The basic principle is that it does not break wudoo’. Those who claim otherwise must produce evidence.
2-The fact that the person remains pure is proven by shar’i evidence, and what is proven by shar’i evidence cannot be overruled except with further shar’i evidence. See al-Sharh al-Mumti’ by Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (1/166).
3-Abu Dawood (198) narrated that Jaabir (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: We went out with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) on the campaign of Dhaat al-Riqaa’. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Who will guard us?” A man from among the Muhaajireen and a man from among the Ansaar volunteered. He said: Stand at the mouth of the mountain pass. When the two men went out to the mouth of the mountain pass, the Muhaajir lay down and the Ansaari stood and prayed. A mushrik man came and shot him with an arrow and struck him, and he pulled it out, until he had shot him with three arrows. Then he bowed and prostrated, then his companion woke up. When the Muhaajir saw the blood on him, he said: Subhaan Allaah, why didn’t you wake me the first time he shot you? He said: I was in the middle of reciting a soorah and I did not want to interrupt it. This hadeeth was classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.
This clearly indicates that blood does not invalidate wudoo’ even if there is a lot, because if it invalidated wudoo’ he would have stopped praying.
Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Majmoo’: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) knew that and did not rebuke him.
Imam al-Bukhaari (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his Saheeh: The Muslims continued to pray despite their wounds.
Tawoos, Muhammad ibn ‘Ali, ‘Ata’ and the people of the Hijaaz said: Blood does not affect wudoo’.
Ibn ‘Umar squeezed a pimple and blood came out of it, and he did not do wudoo’.
Ibn Abi Awfa spat blood and continued with his prayer.
Ibn ‘Umar and al-Hasan said concerning one who is treated with cupping: All he has to do is wash the site of cupping. End quote.
Al-Haafiz said in al-Fath (1/281): It is narrated in a saheeh report that ‘Umar prayed when his wound was streaming with blood.
All this indicates that bleeding from anywhere other than the front and back passage does not invalidate wudoo’.
And Allaah knows best.