Islamic Fiqh > Purification (Tahara) > Menstruation (hayd), lochia and irregular bleeding > Bringing on or stopping menstruation with medicine
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
The Hanbalis explicitly ruled that it is permissible for the woman to take a lawful medicine to stop the menstruation, without restriction, provided she is safe from harm. Al-Qadi said: it is only permissible with the husband's permission, like withdrawal (azl), for he has a right to offspring; the author of al-Insaf said: this is the correct view; and the author of al-Furu' added: this is supported by one of Ahmad's answers: the wife seeks her husband's permission. He also said: for the man to do this to her, that is, to give her a lawful medicine stopping the menstruation without her knowledge, carries prohibition, for it removes her right absolutely from intended offspring.
It is likewise permissible for the woman to take a lawful medicine to bring on the menstruation, unless she has a legally forbidden purpose, such as breaking the fast of Ramadan: this is reported from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya (al-Mughni 1/461; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/218; al-Ikhtiyarat al-ilmiyya 1/47; al-Insaf 1/383; Manar al-Sabil 1/77). Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) disliked that a woman take medicine to delay the menstruation; Ibn Rushd said: he only disliked it for fear she might inflict harm upon her body.
If the woman takes medicine to hasten purity, for example a woman whose blood customarily comes for 8 days and who uses it after 3 days of flow and sees the blood stop: she is deemed pure. If she takes it to hasten the onset of menstruation before its time, the Malikis explicitly said that what comes down is not menstruation: the woman is pure, the waiting period does not end by it, marriage does not become lawful again, she prays and fasts on the possibility that it is not menstruation, then she makes up the fast but not the prayer, as a precaution for the possibility that it is indeed menstrual blood (Mawahib al-Jalil 1/365 and 366; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi 1/268 and 270).
Among the Shafi'is, the apparent view is permissibility, and Allah knows best. Al-Nawawi said: if she took medicine for the menstruation and then menstruated, no making up is required of her, that is, of prayers; likewise if she took medicine, expelled a fetus and entered postpartum bleeding: no making up is due according to the correct view, for the abandonment of prayer by the menstruating or postpartum woman is a firm decree (al-Majmu' 2/479).
The source lists the points where menstruation (hayd) and postpartum bleeding (nifas) differ:
The jurists differed over the maximum duration of nifas. Imam Abu Hanifa and Ahmad: 40 days. The author of al-Mughni says: this is the view of most of the people of knowledge; Abu Isa al-Tirmidhi said: the people of knowledge among the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and those after them agreed that the postpartum woman leaves the prayer for 40 days, unless she sees purity before that: she then washes and prays. Abu Ubayd said: and on this is the generality of people. They rely on what Abu Dawud and others narrated from Umm Salama (may Allah be pleased with her):
“In the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the postpartum woman would remain apart after her bleeding 40 days or 40 nights.”Authentic hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud (311), al-Tirmidhi (139) and Ibn Majah (641)
Imam Malik and al-Shafi'i: 60 days; it is also a narration from Imam Ahmad related by Ibn Aqil. They rely on what is reported from al-Awza'i: “we have among us a woman who sees nifas for 2 months”, and on what is similarly reported from Ata', who found it in actual experience: the criterion in this matter is empirical finding. Another narration from Imam Malik states that there is no limit to its maximum: the woman remains apart for the longest that women remain apart, and one reverts, in this, to the women of knowledge and experience among them.
The rationale of his view is that custom is, in this chapter, a principle one returns to and relies upon: women know it and distinguish what belongs to it from what does not, and it is therefore to them that one reverts. This is indicated overall by His word: “and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs” (Surah al-Baqara, 228): He made them trustees of what comes out of them. And by the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to Fatima bint Abi Hubaysh: she said to him: “the blood has overwhelmed me: how shall I be pure, should I abandon the prayer?”, this being because she had departed from her habit and denied its permanence; he answered her:
“When the menstruation comes, leave the prayer; when it departs, wash yourself.”Narrated from Fatima bint Abi Hubaysh; the source gives no takhrij
He referred her to her own knowledge and recognition of the matter, without attaching any fixed limit to it (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/497; al-Ikhtiyar 1/30; Sharh Fath al-Qadir 1/188; al-Ishraf 1/49 and 50; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 1/376; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi 1/279; al-Majmu' 2/482 and 483; Kifayat al-Akhyar 1/76; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/119; al-Awsat 2/248 and 250; al-Mughni 1/445; al-Ifsah 1/112; al-Kafi 1/31).
The 3 Imams, Abu Hanifa, Malik and al-Shafi'i, held that if the nifas blood stops before the maximum, she fasts, prays, and her husband may have intercourse with her. Imam Ahmad held it disliked for the husband to approach her before the completion of the maximum according to him, 40 days, because of the report of Uthman ibn Abi al-As:
“She came to him, that is, his wife, before the fortieth day; he said: do not come near me.”Narrated by al-Darimi (1/229), Ibn al-Jarud in al-Muntaqa (p. 63) and Abd al-Razzaq (1/313); Shaykh al-Albani: authentic isnad reported from al-Hasan from Uthman, authentic if he heard it from him; another athar is reported from A'idh ibn Umar by al-Darimi (1/230) and al-Daraqutni (82) via al-Jald ibn Ayyub, who is weak; excerpted from al-Irwa' (1/227) no. 212, and see Tanbih al-Qari (149)
And because he is not safe from the blood returning at the moment of intercourse, which would make it intercourse during nifas. Ibn Qudama said: this is by way of recommendation, for we have already applied to her the ruling of pure women, and this is why she is obliged to wash, pray and fast.
If her blood returns within the 40 days, there are 2 narrations from Ahmad. The first: it is part of her nifas, and she leaves fasting and prayer for it. Ahmad ibn al-Qasim said: “if the blood returns to her before the fortieth, she withholds from prayer and fasting; if she becomes pure again, she washes, prays and fasts”: this is the view of Ata' and al-Shabi, for it is blood within the time of nifas, hence nifas like the first, and as if continuous. The second: it is a doubtful blood: she fasts and prays, then makes up the fast as a precaution; this is the known narration from him, reported by al-Athram and others, and her husband does not come to her. She is bound to perform the acts of worship despite this blood because their cause is certain and their lapse through this blood is doubtful: certainty is not removed by doubt; and she is ordered to make up as a precaution, for the obligation of prayer and fasting is certain, and the lapse of fasting through performing it during this blood is doubtful, likewise not removed by doubt.
The difference between this blood and blood exceeding 6 or 7 days in the case of the woman who has forgotten her habit, where she does not make up what she fasted despite the doubt, is this: according to women's habits, 6 or 7 days predominate and the excess is rare, unlike nifas; and because menstruation recurs, so requiring making it up each time would be too hard, unlike nifas and unlike blood exceeding the habit in menstruation.
Malik said: if she sees the blood after 2 or 3 days, it is nifas; if the interval between them is long, it is menstruation. The companions of al-Shafi'i have 2 views for the woman who sees blood a day and a night after a purity of 15 days: the first, it is menstruation; the second, it is nifas. Al-Qadi said: if she sees blood less than a day and a night after a purity of 15 days, it is corrupted blood: she prays, fasts and does not make up; this is the view of Abu Thawr; and if the second blood lasts a day and a night, the ruling is as we stated: she fasts, prays and makes up the fast (al-Mughni 1/448 and 449; al-Majmu' 2/532 and 533; al-Ifsah 1/112; al-Rawd al-Murbi' 1/511; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/123; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/220).
The jurists agreed that if the woman miscarries a fetus in which part of its formation is already discernible, like a finger for instance, it is a child: the woman thereby becomes a woman in nifas, for it is the beginning of the creation of a human being, and her waiting period ends with that expulsion. They differed when nothing of its formation is discernible: is the blood that comes afterwards nifas blood or not?
The Hanafis and the Hanbalis, in the school, held that if the fetus's formation is not discernible, the blood that comes is not counted as nifas but as istihada blood, except where it can be counted as menstruation according to the Hanafis. The Hanafis specify: if the miscarriage shows part of the formation, like a finger or a nail, it is like a complete child: the rulings of childbirth attach to it, the completion of the waiting period and becoming a woman in nifas, for it is certain knowledge that it is a child created from the male and the female. If nothing of its formation is discernible, it is a clot (alaqa) or a lump (mudgha): the blood seen after it has no nifas ruling and it is not a child, for we do not know whether that is the being formed from both fluids, coagulated blood, or some ill humor transformed into the appearance of flesh; no ruling of childbirth attaches to it, she does not become a woman in nifas by it, and her waiting period does not end by it. For pregnancy designates a transformed drop (nutfa): the proof is that a miscarried clot or lump does not end the waiting period, the drop not being transformed; and transformation is only known with certainty through the discernment of part of the formation.
Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) says: its formation is only discernible after one 100 and 20 days, and the apparent meaning of what he cited from al-Dhakhira is that the presence of the head is required. In al-Shumuni: if she expels a mudgha with nothing of its formation discernible and trustworthy midwives testify that it is the beginning of a human creation that would have formed had it remained, there is no ghurra (fetal compensation) in it and an assessed compensation (hukuma) is due according to us (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 6/590).
But if the blood seen can be counted as menstruation, lasting up to the minimum of menstruation and preceded by a complete purity, it is counted as menstruation; otherwise it is istihada. Al-Sarkhasi says: if she saw blood before the expulsion: if the miscarried fetus is of discernible formation, she does not leave prayer and fasting for the blood seen before it, and if she did leave the prayer she must make it up, for it became clear she was pregnant when she saw that blood: the blood of a pregnant woman has no menstruation ruling, and she is a woman in nifas for what she sees until the expulsion. If the miscarried fetus is not of discernible formation, what she saw before the expulsion is menstruation if it can be counted as such, coinciding with the days of her habit and occurring just after a valid purity: it became clear she was not pregnant.
Then, if what she saw before the expulsion covers a complete duration, what she sees afterwards is istihada; if the duration is incomplete, she completes her duration with what she sees after the expulsion, then she is in istihada afterwards. Example: if her days are 3, she saw 3 days of blood before the expulsion and the blood continued after: her menstruation is the 3 days before the expulsion, and she is in istihada for what she sees after. If she saw one day or 2 before, she completes 3 days with what she sees after the expulsion, then she is in istihada afterwards. If she saw nothing before and sees blood after: if the miscarried fetus is of discernible formation, she is a woman in nifas; if not, if what she sees after can be counted as menstruation, it is counted for her in equivalence to the days of her habit; if that is not possible, she is in istihada for that flow (al-Mabsut 3/213 and 214; Bada'i al-Sana'i 1/43; al-Hidaya 4/190; al-Inaya 1/304 and 305; Sharh Fath al-Qadir 1/188; al-Ikhtiyar 1/42; al-Bahr al-Raiq 4/147).
The Malikis held that nifas is established by clotted blood that does not dissolve when hot water is poured upon it, that is the alaqa: the blood coming after it is nifas and ends the waiting period; not the blood that dissolves in hot water, for there is nothing in it. Al-Dardir says in his commentary on Khalil's Mukhtasar: “(the waiting period of the pregnant woman), free or slave, (in death or divorce, is the delivery of all her child)... and if (the pregnancy was) blood (that gathered)”, and the sign that it is a pregnancy is that hot water poured on it does not dissolve it (al-Sharh al-Kabir with the Hashiya of al-Dusuqi 3/421 and 422; see Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 4/143; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 1/137; Lawami al-Durar fi hatk alfaz al-Mukhtasar 13/146).
Shaykh Alish says: if he divorced her before that, delivering it suffices her if it was a mudgha or beyond, and even if the pregnancy was clotted blood such that hot water does not dissolve it: that is the alaqa. Abu al-Hasan (on al-Mudawwana): if the nature of what comes out, child or blood, is ambiguous, it is tested with hot water: if it is blood it dissolves; if it is a child, that only makes it firmer (Manh al-Jalil 4/309).
The Shafi'is held that it is not required, for the nifas ruling to be established, that the child be fully formed: the ruling is established by the delivery of that in which a human form appears, or without an apparent form but regarding which trustworthy women experienced in this matter testify that it is human flesh. Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) says: our companions said: it is not required that the child be fully formed nor alive; even if she delivers a stillborn, or flesh shaped in human form or unshaped, and the midwives say it is human flesh, the nifas ruling is established: thus al-Mutawalli and others explicitly stated; al-Mawardi said: its criterion is that she deliver what ends the waiting period and makes her a mother (al-Majmu' 2/490).
The Hanbalis, in the school: the nifas ruling is established by the delivery of something in which human creation is present. The minimum in which human creation is discernible is 81 days, and the predominant case is 3 months; if she delivers an alaqa or a mudgha with no discernible formation, no nifas ruling is established for her: a text from Ahmad. According to a narration from Ahmad, the ruling is established by the delivery of a mudgha; according to another, of an alaqa; and it is also said: the postpartum ruling is established for her if she delivers it at 4 months. As for the nutfa, it has no effect, by agreement of all views. When we say it is not nifas, it is as a non-pregnant woman seeing that blood: if it coincides with the time of her habit, it is menstruation; if not, it is doubtful until it recurs, except for the beginner; and in every case, if she sees it at the onset of labor, she withholds from acts of worship, for the apparent likelihood is that she will deliver what establishes the nifas ruling; then if, after delivery, it becomes clear that it was neither nifas nor menstruation, she makes up the obligations she left; and if nothing becomes clear because the miscarried was buried before examination, the apparent likelihood is maintained that it was nifas, as we say in all forms of careful investigation (al-Mughni 1/450; Sharh al-Umda 1/523; al-Insaf 1/387; Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari by Ibn Rajab 1/487; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/257; Matalib Uli al-Nuha 1/270).
Abu al-Ma'ali al-Juwayni said: “the rulings of the woman with istihada are among the most subtle the scholars have traversed” (Ghiyath al-Umam, p. 519). The woman with istihada (mustahada) is one who sees blood outside the time of menstruation and nifas after reaching the age of menstruation, or one whose blood continued after the completion of her menstruation, by combination (talfiq) or otherwise. Istihada blood is red and thin, unlike the blood of menstruation and nifas, which is murky and without clarity. The people of knowledge agreed that istihada blood nullifies purity: related by Ibn al-Mundhir (al-Ijma', p. 3).
Imam Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) sets out the question: the one afflicted with urinary incontinence (salas al-bawl) or abundant madhi that does not stop, like the mustahada, performs wudu for every prayer after washing his private part. In sum: the mustahada, the person with urinary incontinence or abundant madhi, the wounded person whose blood does not stop and similar cases, whose impurity continues without their being able to preserve their purity, must perform wudu for every prayer after washing the site of the impurity, binding it and guarding against its exit as much as they can.
The mustahada washes the site then pads it with cotton (kursuf) or the like to restrain the blood, for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to Hamna when she complained to him of the abundance of the blood:
“I direct you to kursuf (cotton), for it does away with the blood.”A good (hasan) hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud (287), al-Tirmidhi (128) and Ibn Majah (622)
If the blood is not restrained by the cotton, she braces herself with a thick cloth split at both ends, which she ties over her hips and middle, over the private part: this is what appears in the hadith of Umm Salama: “let her brace herself with a garment”, and he said to Hamna: “wear a protective band”, when she said it was even more abundant. If after that the blood comes out: if it is from the looseness of the tie, she redoes the tie and the purification; if it is from the preponderance and strength of the flow, which cannot be tied further, the purification is not nullified, for one cannot guard against it: she prays even if the blood drips. Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said: “one of his wives performed seclusion (i'tikaf) with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and she would see blood and yellowish discharge, with the basin placed beneath her, while praying” (narrated by al-Bukhari, 304). And in a hadith: “pray, even if the blood drips onto the mat” (a weak hadith: narrated by Ibn Majah 624 and Ahmad 25722).
Likewise the one with urinary incontinence or abundant madhi: he binds the head of his penis with a cloth and guards himself as he can, then does what has been described. Likewise the wounded man whose blood gushes, or one troubled by wind or the like, of the impediments that cannot be cut off from him. If it is of what cannot be bound, like a wound that cannot be tied, an anal fistula or a sinus that cannot be dressed: one prays according to one's state, as is reported of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him): when he was stabbed he prayed while his wound gushed with blood.
Each of these cases is bound to perform wudu for the time of every prayer, unless something exits from him: thus said al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr and the companions of personal opinion (the Hanafis). Malik said: wudu is not obligatory upon the mustahada; this is also related from Ikrima and Rabi'a. Malik recommended for the one with urinary incontinence to perform wudu for every prayer, unless the cold harms him; if it harms him: “I hope there is no constraint upon him in leaving the wudu.” They supported their view with the hadith of Hisham ibn Urwa, from his father, from Aisha: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to Fatima bint Abi Hubaysh: “wash and pray”, without ordering her to perform wudu; and because wudu is not textually prescribed for this flow, nor is it within the meaning of the text, for the text concerns the habitual flow, and this is not habitual.
Our proof, the Hanbalis answer, is what Adi ibn Thabit narrated from his father and grandfather, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), regarding the mustahada:
“She leaves the prayer the days of her periods, then she washes, fasts, prays, and performs wudu at every prayer.”Authentic hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud (297) and al-Tirmidhi (126)
From Aisha: Fatima bint Abi Hubaysh came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), told him her account, and he said to her: “wash, then perform wudu for every prayer and pray” (authentic hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud 298 and al-Tirmidhi 125, who graded it good and authentic). And because this flow exits from the passage: it nullifies wudu, like madhi.
This being established, the purity of these people is tied to the time, per his saying: “she performs wudu at every prayer”, and: “perform wudu for every prayer”, and because it is a purity of excuse and necessity, hence tied to time like tayammum. If one of them performs wudu before the time and something exits from him, his purity is nullified: through its onset, the time in which he performed wudu elapses, and the expiry of the time nullifies this purity as we established; and because impurity nullifies purity: it is only excused because guarding against it is impossible despite the need for purity.
If he performs wudu after the entry of the time, it is valid, his impurity is lifted, and what renews of impurity, from which guarding is impossible, has no effect on it. If he enters the prayer immediately after his purification, or delays it for something connected to the interest of the prayer, such as putting on clothes or waiting for the congregation, or he did not know that something had exited him: this is permitted. If he delays it for something else, there are 2 views: the first, permissibility, for it is a purity sought for the prayer after the entry of its time: it resembles tayammum, and because it is a purity of necessity, tied to time like tayammum; the second, prohibition, for he was only permitted to pray with this purity, despite the standing impurity, out of need and necessity, and there is no necessity here.
If the time expires after something has exited from her, or she contracted an impurity other than this flow, the purity is nullified. Ahmad said, in the narration of Ahmad ibn al-Qasim: she was only ordered to perform wudu for every prayer so that she prays, with that wudu, the voluntary prayer and the missed prayer, until the time of the next prayer enters and she performs wudu again. This amounts to likening her to tayammum: it endures as long as the time endures, she may pray voluntarily with it, make up missed prayers and join 2 prayers, as long as she does not contract another impurity and the time does not expire. The mustahada may join 2 prayers with a single wudu, for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered Hamna bint Jahsh to join 2 prayers with a single washing, and ordered Sahla bint Suhayl to do it; others with legal excuses, besides the mustahada, are analogized to her and attached to her (al-Mughni 1/438 and 441).
The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in one view, held intercourse with the mustahada permissible, for istihada blood is not a harm preventing prayer and fasting: it should therefore not prevent intercourse, per the word of the Most High: “it is harm; so keep away from women during menstruation and do not approach them until they become pure; when they have purified themselves, then come to them” (Surah al-Baqara, 222): now this woman has purified herself from menstruation.
And because of what Ikrima narrated from Hamna bint Jahsh (may Allah be pleased with her): “she was a mustahada and her husband had intercourse with her” (a good hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud 310). In Sahih al-Bukhari, Ibn Abbas said: “the mustahada: her husband comes to her when she has prayed; prayer is greater” (narrated by al-Bukhari, in suspended form, 1/125).
Because the mustahada is like the pure woman in prayer, fasting, seclusion, recitation and the rest: likewise in intercourse; because it is vein blood that does not prevent intercourse, like a fistula; because prohibition belongs to the revealed law and nothing was revealed prohibiting it: the permissibility of prayer, which is greater, was on the contrary revealed, as Ibn Abbas said; and because the mustahada follows the ruling of pure women in other than the disputed point: she must be ranged with her like, not with menstruation, with which she shares nothing (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari 1/461; al-Tamhid 16/69 and 71; al-Istidhkar 1/352; Tafsir al-Qurtubi 3/86; al-Majmu' 2/372 and 373; Sharh Sahih Muslim 4/17; Umdat al-Qari 3/277; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/298; al-Insaf 1/382).
The Hanbalis, in the school, held intercourse with the mustahada forbidden, except out of fear for himself, because of what al-Khallal narrated with his isnad from Aisha: “the mustahada: her husband does not lie with her” (narrated by al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra, 1460); and because she bears a harm: intercourse with her is forbidden as with the menstruating woman. Allah forbade intercourse with the menstruating woman, grounding the prohibition in harm, per His word: “say: it is harm; so keep away from women during menstruation” (Surah al-Baqara, 222): He ordered withdrawal from them immediately after the mention of harm, with the fa of sequence; He named menstruation harm and ordered withdrawal from women on its account; now it is blood exiting from the vagina whose impurity and the washing of the garment from it are agreed upon: every blood whose washing is obligatory and whose impurity is legally established therefore follows the ruling of menstrual blood in forbidding intercourse when it is present at the place of intercourse.
And because, when a ruling is mentioned together with a description that entails it and befits it, the legal cause is derived from it, as in His word: “the thief and the thiefess: cut off their hands” (Surah al-Ma'ida, 38); harm can serve as a cause: the ruling is derived from it, and it exists in the mustahada: the prohibition is thus established for her. If the man fears falling into a prohibition should he leave intercourse, it is permitted to him, for their ruling is lighter than that of the menstruating woman; and if he has intercourse without that fear, no expiation is due, for obligation belongs to the revealed law: nothing was revealed establishing it for her, nor is she in the meaning of the menstruating woman, given what distinguishes them. When her blood stops, intercourse becomes permissible without ghusl, for the ghusl is not obligatory upon her: she resembles the one with urinary incontinence (al-Mughni 1/437 and 438; Sharh al-Zarkashi 1/131; al-Insaf 1/382).
Imam Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) says: the scholars differed over the permissibility of intercourse with the mustahada in 3 views. Some: it is permissible: this is the position of the jurists of the great cities, and it is related from Ibn Abbas, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib and a group of the successors. Others: it is not permissible: it is related from Aisha, and al-Nakha'i and al-Hakam said so. Still others: her husband does not come to her unless the condition drags on: this is the view of Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
The cause of their disagreement: is the permission of prayer granted to her a dispensation because of the emphasis on the obligation of prayer, or is prayer permitted to her because her ruling is that of the pure woman? Whoever sees it as a dispensation does not allow her husband to have intercourse with her; whoever sees in it the ruling of the pure woman allows it: it is, in sum, a question about which the texts are silent. As for distinguishing between the condition dragging on or not, it is a juristic preference (istihsan) (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/45 and 46).