The vomit of a human is not impure (najis), so the origin remains that is pure, though it is unsightly and understandably disliked by people.

The vomit of a human is not impure (najis), so the origin remains that is pure, though it is unsightly and disliked by people.

The saying of Malikis is that it is pure and not najis.

Shawkani stated: The impurities are: all parts of the stools (or faeces) of a person, his urine except for a baby boy who is being breastfed, the saliva of a dog and its excrement (and urine), the blood of menstruation, and the flesh of swine. Other than these, there is differing. And the origin of things is that they are pure (not najis). And nothing is to be narrated regarding [what is impure] except through an authentic narration that does not contradict what is equal to it [in authenticity] or stronger than it.” (Ad-Darāri al-Maḍiyyah 27/1) He also said: “The origin of things is that they are pure, and whoever claims something is impure, then upon him is to bring evidence. So, if he brings something that can be satisfactorily be cited that takes something away from its origin being considered pure, then that is accepted from him, otherwise his saying is not accepted.” (As-Saylul-Jarrār p. 62)

Ibn ʿUthaimeen stated: “Whether it is a small amount or large amount [exiting the mouth], there is no proof that vomit is impure (najis).” (Liqā al-Bāb al-Maftooh, sitting no. 88)

Ibn Bāz said when asked about the proof for impurity of vomit: “There is nothing clear – rather [some scholars] make the analogy with excrement (faeces).” (Iktiyārāt ash-Shaikh Ibn Bāz al-Fiqhiyyah of Khālid Aali Hāmid 1/299)

Al-Albānī held that vomit is not najis. (Tamām al-Minnah 1/53-54)

So, there is no authentic proof that shows that vomit is impure, and if it was impure, Allah would have made that clear. (See, As-Saylul-Jarrār p. 30)

Abu Khadeejah.