Islamic Fiqh > Purification (Tahara) > Menstruation (hayd), lochia and irregular bleeding > Istihada, nifas and special cases
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 1:14 PM
This second part on the rulings of menstruation (hayd), faithfully translated from the al-Mawsua al-fiqhiyya juristic encyclopedia, completes the questions specific to the menstruating woman and then covers postpartum bleeding (nifas) and chronic abnormal bleeding (istihada). It successively examines attaining the fast, the tawaf, Quran recitation, touching the mushaf, marital intimacy, the use of medicine, miscarriage, and the rulings for the woman with istihada. Each position is attributed to its school exactly as the source attributes it, with references to classical works and the verdicts of hadith specialists.
The jurists are unanimous: if menstrual blood stops after dawn (fajr), her fast of that day does not count and she must make it up (qada). According to the Hanafis and the Hanbalis, she must then abstain from whatever breaks the fast until evening (imsak). According to the Malikis, she may eat and continue in things that break the fast, abstention not being recommended; according to the Shafi'is, abstention is not required of her.
The jurists also agreed that if the woman becomes pure before dawn she must fast that day; they differed over the interval of cessation needed for the fast to be valid. The Hanafis have two views. The first: if the blood stopped before daybreak in Ramadan leaving only enough time for the ghusl, she must fast that day, and she does not have to make up Isha unless she also had the time for the opening takbir of prayer (tahrima). The second: her fast does not count unless what remains of the time suffices for the ghusl and the takbir, for her purity is only legally established with both; if the time of the ghusl and the takbir remains, her fast is valid, because Isha has become a debt upon her and she falls under the ruling of pure women, her purity being established by necessity. Ibn Nujaym said: “this is the truth as it appears” (al-Bahr al-Raiq 1/215; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/492; Majmu al-Rasa'il 1/91; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi 1/447; Sharh Fath al-Qadir 2/326; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 1/59).
Among the Malikis, according to the mashhur view, that of Malik and Ibn al-Qasim: if the woman sees purity before dawn, even by a single moment, fasting is obligatory upon her; even if she notices a sign of purity coinciding with dawn and then forms the intention to fast, her fast is valid. The Malikis explicitly stated that the woman accustomed to the sign of dryness (qassa) does not wait for it here: as soon as she sees any sign, dryness or qassa, fasting becomes due and her fast is valid even if she only performs the ghusl after dawn, by analogy with the person in a state of major impurity (junub), for major purity is not a condition of fasting. Ibn al-Majishun, among them, said: if she becomes pure before dawn with enough time for the ghusl but does not wash until dawn has risen, her fast counts; if the time was too narrow for the ghusl, her fast does not count.
Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “the correct view in this question is that of Malik and Ibn al-Qasim; it is that of most of Malik's companions, and it is the view of the majority of scholars” (al-Kafi 1/123). If she becomes pure during a night of Ramadan then doubts, after dawn, whether it happened before or after dawn: she abstains that day and makes it up, abstention covering the possibility of purity before dawn, and making it up the possibility after it (Hashiyat al-Dusuqi 1/813; al-Thamar al-Dani 1/297; Tafsir al-Qurtubi 2/369).
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis hold that as soon as menstrual blood ceases, fasting becomes obligatory, without specifying a set period, unlike the Hanafis and the Malikis. Al-Nawawi said: “when menstruation ceases, the prohibition of fasting is lifted, even if she does not perform the ghusl.” The Shafi'is explicitly ruled that if the menstruating woman intends to fast the next day before her blood stops, and the blood stops during the night, her fast is valid if most of the menstrual duration has elapsed for her during that night, and likewise the duration of her habit, according to the more correct view. The Hanbalis, likewise according to the more correct view among them, ruled: “if a menstruating woman intends to fast the next day while knowing she will be pure before dawn, her fast is valid, because of the hardship of requiring the coincidence” (Rawdat al-Talibin 1/137 and 2/372; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/326; Hashiyat al-Jamal 2/335; Hashiyat al-Bajrami 2/81; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 3/118; Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/309 and 315; Matalib Uli al-Nuha 2/186; al-Insaf 3/294; Fath al-Bari 1/192).
The jurists agreed that the menstruating woman is not prevented from any action of the hajj except the tawaf around the House: it is forbidden for her to circumambulate, because of the hadith of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her): when she menstruated, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to her:
“Do what the pilgrim does, except that you shall not perform the tawaf around the House.”Narrated by al-Bukhari (290, 299) and Muslim (1211)
Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: this hadith is proof that the tawaf is not valid from a menstruating woman, and this is agreed upon; they differed, however, over its legal cause, according to their difference over whether purity is a condition for the tawaf. Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad: it is a condition; Abu Hanifa: it is not, and Dawud agreed with him. Whoever makes purity a condition says that the cause of the invalidity of her tawaf is the absence of purity; whoever does not says the cause is her being prevented from staying in the mosque (Sharh Sahih Muslim 8/147). The consensus on this point was transmitted by a group of scholars, among them Ibn Abd al-Barr, Ibn Jarir and Ibn Hubayra.
The prescribed tawafs in the hajj are three. The first is the arrival tawaf (qudum): a sunna according to the generality of jurists, except the Malikis in one view; Imam Malik said, in the narration of Ibn al-Qasim and Ibn Abd al-Hakam, that it is obligatory, and it is also a view among the Hanbalis mentioned by al-Mirdawi in al-Insaf. The second is the tawaf of ifada: a pillar of the hajj by agreement. The third is the farewell tawaf: obligatory according to Abu Hanifa, Ahmad and al-Shafi'i in the stronger of his two views, its abandonment without excuse entailing a sacrificial offering (dam); Imam Malik and al-Shafi'i in his second view held it recommended.
If the woman menstruates before performing the arrival tawaf, it lapses and nothing is required of her, according to those who hold it to be a sunna. Among the Malikis, it is not obligatory upon her as long as her excuse persists, when she cannot perform it before the standing at Arafat. If she menstruates before the tawaf of ifada, she remains in ihram until she becomes pure, then she circumambulates; if she performs the tawaf while menstruating, it is invalid according to the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis.
The Hanafis held this tawaf valid but with prohibitive reprehensibility (karaha tahrimiyya), for purity is required for it and she is not pure: she sins and owes a badana (a she-camel to be sacrificed). A narration among the Hanbalis likewise admitted the validity of her tawaf; al-Mirdawi said in al-Insaf (1/348): “the correct view of the school is that the menstruating woman is prevented from the tawaf in all cases and it is not valid from her; this is the view of the generality of the school's companions, and many of them asserted it categorically.” According to Imam Ahmad, the tawaf is valid and compensated by a sacrificial offering: this is the apparent meaning of al-Qadi's words; Shaykh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya chose that it is permitted for her in case of necessity, with no offering due from her.
The jurists of the four schools agreed that the menstruating woman may depart without the farewell tawaf, as an alleviation for her, because of the hadith of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her): when Safiyya (may Allah be pleased with her) menstruated, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered her:
“Depart without bidding farewell.”Narrated by al-Bukhari (322, 1673) and Muslim (1/12)
The following athar is reported from Tawus: “I was with Ibn Abbas when Zayd ibn Thabit said: do you give fatwas allowing the menstruating woman to depart before her last contact with the House is settled? Ibn Abbas said to him: well then, go ask such-and-such a woman of the Ansar whether the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered her to do that. Zayd ibn Thabit returned to Ibn Abbas laughing and saying: I see you have spoken the truth” (narrated by Muslim, 1328). The Shafi'is, according to the valid view, and the Hanbalis explicitly ruled that if she becomes pure before leaving the buildings of Mecca, she is obligated to return: she performs the ghusl then the tawaf; if she does not, an offering is due from her, unlike the woman who becomes pure outside Mecca, from whom nothing is required (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/486; al-Bahr al-Raiq 2/398; Ahkam al-Quran 1/96; Tafsir al-Qurtubi 12/15; al-Istidhkar 4/278; al-Kafi 1/135; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi 2/34 and 53; al-Majmu' 1/13; Sharh Sahih Muslim by al-Nawawi 9/76 and 78; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 3/317; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/510; al-Mughni 3/252; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/197 and 2/483, 513; al-Insaf 3/248; al-Ifsah 1/103 and 521).
The jurists differed over the menstruating woman's recitation of the Quran in two views. The first: the Hanafis, the Shafi'is in the school and the Hanbalis in the school held that it is forbidden for the menstruating woman to recite the Quran, because of the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
“Let not the menstruating woman nor the person in major impurity recite anything of the Quran.”Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (131) and Ibn Majah (581); a rejected (munkar) hadith: al-Nawawi declared it weak in al-Majmu' (2/174), it was graded weak by al-Bukhari, al-Bayhaqi and others, and its weakness is evident
They have details within this prohibition (Bada'i al-Sana'i 1/48; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/487; al-Bahr al-Raiq 1/209; al-Hidaya 1/31; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi 1/49; Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/80; al-Majmu' 2/358 and 309; Sharh Sahih Muslim 4/61; Rawdat al-Talibin 1/246; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/72; al-Mughni 1/184 and 394; al-Kafi 1/72; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/197; al-Insaf 1/243 and 347).
The second view: the Malikis and the Shafi'is in one view, as well as a view of Imam Ahmad chosen by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him), held that it is permissible for the menstruating woman to recite the Quran. Shaykh al-Islam even said: if she fears forgetting it, recitation becomes obligatory. He then said (may Allah have mercy on him): nothing is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) regarding the recitation of the Quran by the menstruating woman except the hadith narrated from Ibn Umar: “Let not the menstruating woman nor the person in major impurity recite anything of the Quran”; yet it is a weak hadith by agreement of the scholars of hadith.
It is known, he continues, that women menstruated in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and that he did not prevent them from reciting the Quran, just as he did not prevent them from remembrance (dhikr) and supplication; rather he ordered the menstruating women to go out on the day of Eid to pronounce the takbir with that of the Muslims. He ordered the menstruating woman to perform all the rites except the tawaf around the House: she pronounces the talbiya while menstruating, likewise at Muzdalifa, at Mina and at the other sacred places. As for the person in major impurity, he was not ordered to attend Eid and pray, nor to make up anything of the rites: he can purify himself, so he has no excuse for neglecting purity, unlike the menstruating woman, whose impurity is established and ongoing and who cannot, during that period, purify herself (Majmu al-Fatawa 21/461 and 462; al-Ikhtiyarat 1/45).
The Malikis nevertheless specified: it is permissible for her to recite the Quran while the blood is flowing, without restriction, whether she was in major impurity or not, whether she fears forgetting or not. However, when her menstruation stops, it is not permissible for her to recite until she performs the ghusl, whether she was in major impurity or not, unless she fears forgetting: this is the relied-upon view among them, for she is then able to purify herself. There is among them a weak view that once the blood has stopped, recitation would only be permissible if she was not in major impurity before the menstruation; if she was, recitation would not be allowed.
Al-Dusuqi said: the woman whose menstruation has stopped may recite if she was not in major impurity before the menstruation; if she was, recitation is not permissible for her; the commentator al-'Abb followed this view and made it the school position, but it is weak, and the relied-upon view is that of Abd al-Haqq: the menstruating woman whose blood has stopped does not recite until she washes, whether she was in major impurity or not, unless she fears forgetting. Likewise, the relied-upon view is that she may recite while the blood is flowing, in major impurity or not, fearing forgetting or not: thus Ibn Rushd presented it at the head of his Muqaddimat, endorsing it, and it is what al-Tawdih, Ibn Farhun and others confined themselves to; noted h, it is also the apparent view. It is also reported from Ibn Arafa that al-Baji said: our companions said: the menstruating woman recites even after purity and before the ghusl, the text covering both cases: whether or not she was in a state of major impurity beforehand (Hashiyat al-Dusuqi 1/178; see Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/80; al-Dhakhira 1/315; al-Mughni 1/184 and 394; al-Insaf 1/243 and 347).
There is no disagreement among the jurists of the four schools: it is forbidden, as a general rule, for the menstruating woman, the person in major impurity (junub) and the one in a state of minor impurity (muhdith) to touch the mushaf. Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “we know of no one who disagrees with this except Dawud” (al-Mughni 1/187). They rely on the word of Allah the Most High:
“None touch it except the purified.”
Surah al-Waqi'a, 79
And on what Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Amr ibn Hazm narrated from his father and his grandfather: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) wrote to the people of Yemen a letter containing:
“None is to touch the Quran except a pure person.”Authentic hadith: narrated by Malik in al-Muwatta' (1/199), al-Darimi (2266) and al-Daraqutni (1/122)
Shaykh Dr. Nasir al-Najjar (may Allah preserve him) devoted a treatise to the authentication of this hadith and the scholars' statements on it, entitled “Hukm mass al-mushaf” (the ruling on touching the mushaf), which may be consulted.
The Malikis excepted the woman who teaches and the woman who learns: it is permissible for her to touch the mushaf, whether complete or partial, or the tablet on which the Quran is written. Some said: this does not apply to the person in major impurity, for the lifting of his impurity is in his own hand and is not difficult for him, like wudu, unlike the menstruating woman, whose lifting of impurity is not in her own hand. The relied-upon view among them, however, is that the person in major impurity, man or woman, may touch and carry the mushaf in the context of learning and teaching, because of the hardship, whether the need for the mushaf is reading or revision for memorization (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/488; Durar al-Hukkam 1/58; al-Bahr al-Raiq 1/209; al-Ikhtiyar 1/1; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 1/322; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi 1/278; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 2/382; Bulghat al-Salik 1/149; Rawdat al-Talibin 1/246; Tafsir al-Qurtubi 17/225; al-Mughni by Ibn Qudama 1/187; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/197; among others).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: is it permissible to touch the mushaf without wudu, or not? He answered: the position of the four Imams is that none touches the mushaf except a pure person, as stated in the letter written (to the people of Yemen).
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis held it forbidden for her to pass through the mosque if she fears soiling it, for soiling the mosque with impurity is forbidden and means take the ruling of their ends. If she does not fear soiling it: according to the Shafi'is, with the exception of the Imam of the Two Holy Mosques, her passing through is merely disliked; the Imam of the Two Holy Mosques, al-Juwayni, said it is forbidden for her absolutely, whether she fears soiling it or not.
The Hanbalis held that if she does not fear soiling it, she is not prevented from passing through the mosque; Imam Ahmad said, in the narration of Ibrahim: “she passes through but does not sit; if she fears soiling it, she refrains” (see Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/486; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi 1/278; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 1/209; al-Majmu' 2/360; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/275; Hawashi al-Tuhfa 1/386 and 387; al-Mughni 1/185 and 187; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/148 and 149; al-Insaf 1/347 and 348; al-Furu' 1/226; Majmu al-Fatawa 26/123; Nayl al-Awtar 1/288; al-Ifsah 1/103).
The jurists agreed on the prohibition of intercourse with the menstruating woman, in the vagina, until her menstruation ceases, because of the word of the Most High:
“They ask you about menstruation. Say: 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
And the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
“Do everything, that is, during menstruation, except intercourse.”Narrated by Muslim (302)
Al-Nawawi, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Hubayra transmitted the consensus on this prohibition. Shaykh al-Islam said: “intercourse with the woman in postpartum bleeding is like intercourse with the menstruating woman: forbidden by agreement of the Imams” (Majmu al-Fatawa 21/624). The Hanbalis excepted the man afflicted with uncontrollable desire (shabaq) that only vaginal intercourse relieves, who fears the rupture of his two testicles if he does not have intercourse, and who finds no one other than a menstruating woman, being unable to afford the dower of another wife.
The jurists also agreed on the permissibility of enjoying the menstruating woman in what is above the navel and below the knee: Ibn Qudama and al-Nawawi transmitted the consensus on this. Imam Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “enjoyment of the menstruating woman above the navel and below the knee is permissible by the text and by consensus, and intercourse in the vagina is forbidden by both” (al-Mughni 1/203).
They then differed over the area between the navel and the knee. The Hanafis, the Malikis and the Shafi'is in the school held that it is forbidden to enjoy the menstruating woman there, because of the hadith of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her):
“Each of us, when she was menstruating and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) wished to be intimate with her, he would order her to wrap a waist-cloth (izar) over the place of her menstruation, then he would be intimate with her. She said: and which of you controls his desire as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) controlled his?”Narrated by al-Bukhari (300) and Muslim (293)
And because the area between the navel and the knee is the protected zone of the vagina: whoever grazes around a sanctuary soon grazes in it. The Hanafis and the Shafi'is nevertheless permitted enjoyment of that area through a barrier; the Malikis forbade it.
Imam Ahmad, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan among the Hanafis, Asbagh ibn al-Faraj among the Malikis, and some companions of al-Shafi'i (al-Nawawi said of this view that it is stronger in evidence and it is his choice) held it permissible to enjoy the menstruating woman in other than the vagina: he may therefore enjoy the area between the navel and the knee. The Hanbalis recommended covering the vagina at the time of intimacy; they argued from: “keep away from women during menstruation”: menstruation (mahid) is a name for the place of the flow, like “place of midday rest” or “place of night stay”, and confining the withdrawal to the place of the blood is proof of permissibility for everything else.
They also relied on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): “do everything except intercourse” (Muslim 302), and on the fact that intercourse was forbidden because of the harm: its place was therefore specified, like the anus. As for the hadith of Aisha cited above, it proves the permissibility of what is above the waist-cloth and, on this reading, the prohibition of the rest; yet the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) may leave some permissible thing out of fastidiousness, as he left eating lizard and rabbit.
And they relied on the athar of Masruq: he said to Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her): I want to ask you about something and I feel shy. She said: I am only your mother, and you are my son. He said: what is lawful for a man from his wife when she is menstruating? She answered: “everything except her vagina” (authentic isnad, narrated by Ibn Jarir in his Tafsir 2/383; see Tafsir Ibn Kathir 1/260).
The Hanafis and the Shafi'is nevertheless recommended, in this case, giving a dinar in charity if intercourse took place at the beginning of the menstruation, and half of it if it took place at its end (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/494; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 1/57; Umdat al-Qari 3/266; al-Tamhid 3/175; al-Qawanin al-fiqhiyya 1/31; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/110; Rawdat al-Talibin 1/300; Sharh Sahih Muslim 3/172; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/199; al-Insaf 1/350; al-Mughni 1/343; Manar al-Sabil 1/46; Matalib Uli al-Nuha 1/245).
The majority of jurists, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, held that it is not lawful to have intercourse with the menstruating woman until she becomes pure, that is, until the blood stops, and she performs the ghusl. Ibn al-Mundhir said: this is like a consensus from them. Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: in sum, intercourse with the menstruating woman before the ghusl is forbidden, even if her blood has stopped, according to the majority of the people of knowledge; Ibn al-Mundhir said: this is like a consensus from them. Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Marwazi said: I know of no disagreement on this (al-Mughni 1/205).
Intercourse is therefore not permitted before the ghusl, for Allah the Most High set two conditions for its lawfulness: the first is the cessation of the blood, the second is the ghusl. He said: “do not approach them until they become pure”, that is, until their blood stops; “when they have purified themselves”, that is, when they have washed, “then come to them”. And because Allah said in the verse that He loves those who purify themselves: He praised them for an action they performed, and their action is the washing, not the mere cessation of the flow. Both conditions are therefore required together, as in His word: “test the orphans until, when they reach marriageable age, if you perceive in them sound judgment, hand over to them their property”: the handing over of property is not permitted unless both conditions are met, and the same applies here; and because she is prevented from praying due to the impurity of menstruation, intercourse is not permitted with her, just as if the blood had stopped before the minimum duration of menstruation (al-Istidhkar 1/323; al-Tamhid 3/178; al-Qawanin al-fiqhiyya 31; al-Hawi al-Kabir 1/387; al-Muhadhdhab 1/45; Rawdat al-Talibin 1/300; al-Majmu' 2/368; Sharh Sahih Muslim 3/173; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/110; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/199; al-Mughni 1/436 and 437; Majmu al-Fatawa 21/626 and 627; al-Insaf 1/349; al-Ifsah 1/104).
The Hanafis distinguished between the blood stopping at the maximum duration of menstruation, ten days, and its stopping before that; likewise between stopping at the completion of the habit and stopping before the habit. They held that if the blood stops at the completion of the ten, which is the maximum of menstruation according to them, intercourse becomes lawful by the mere cessation; but it is recommended for him not to have intercourse with her until she washes, in keeping with “until they become pure” read according to the two transmissions, with the letter ta lightened or doubled: the lightened reading means “until her menstruation stops” and applies to the ten days; the doubled reading means “until they wash” and applies to what precedes, giving effect to both readings.
For before the ten days, the cessation of menstruation is not legally established because of the possibility of the blood returning, which would then be menstruation; when she washes or a prayer time elapses for her, she enters the ruling of pure women; after the ten days, the cessation of menstruation is established, for if she saw blood it would not be menstrual: this is why intercourse becomes lawful. If the blood stops before the maximum, or at the completion of the habit for the woman with a set habit (the habit not being shortened), intercourse is not lawful until she washes or performs tayammum, for the blood flows at times and ceases at others: the washing is required for the cessation to prevail. If she does not wash and a minimal prayer time elapses for her, sufficient for the ghusl and the opening takbir, intercourse becomes lawful, for prayer has become a debt upon her: she is deemed pure by the mere passing of that time.
However, if the blood stops before the habit while exceeding three days, intercourse is not permissible until her habit has elapsed, even if she has washed, for the return of the blood during the habit is the dominant rule and precaution demands abstention. Thus a woman whose habit is ten days who menstruates three days and remains pure six days: intercourse is not lawful for her until the habit has passed (al-Hidaya 1/30 and 31; al-Bahr al-Raiq 1/213 and 214; al-Ikhtiyar 1/28; Bidayat al-Mubtadi 1/9; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 1/58; Ibn Abidin 1/492 and 493).
The jurists differed over the woman whose menstruation has stopped and who finds no water: may her husband have intercourse with her or not? According to Imam Abu Hanifa, in the mashhur narration from him, intercourse is not lawful until she performs tayammum and prays with it. According to Imam Malik: it is not lawful until she performs the ghusl. According to al-Shafi'i and Ahmad: it is lawful once she has performed tayammum, even if she has not prayed with it (al-Ifsah 1/106; al-Muhadhdhab 1/45; al-Ishraf 1/55; Bada'i al-Sana'i 1/45).
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 eight days and who uses it after three 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: forty 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 forty 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 forty days or forty nights.”Authentic hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud (311), al-Tirmidhi (139) and Ibn Majah (641)
Imam Malik and al-Shafi'i: sixty 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 two 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 three 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, forty 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 forty days, there are two 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 six or seven 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, six or seven 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 two or three days, it is nifas; if the interval between them is long, it is menstruation. The companions of al-Shafi'i have two views for the woman who sees blood a day and a night after a purity of fifteen 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 fifteen 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 hundred and twenty 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 three, she saw three days of blood before the expulsion and the blood continued after: her menstruation is the three days before the expulsion, and she is in istihada for what she sees after. If she saw one day or two before, she completes three 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 eighty-one days, and the predominant case is three 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 four 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 two 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 two prayers, as long as she does not contract another impurity and the time does not expire. The mustahada may join two prayers with a single wudu, for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered Hamna bint Jahsh to join two 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 three 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).