Menstruation and Post-Natal bleeding, - Dought& clear, - * If a woman miscarries after two months of pregnancy, is her bleeding regarded as nifaas?

Share

I was pregnant and I had a miscarriage at two months. I asked a lady who is knowledgeable about Islam whether I should fast Ramadaan and pray, and she answered: “Yes, fast and pray, because the soul had not yet been breathed into (the embryo), so it is regarded as istihaadah (non-menstrual vaginal bleeding).” So I fasted and prayed, but then another doctor told me that I should repeat the fasts. What is the correct ruling?.
Praise be to Allaah.
The different opinions that our sister has heard are the result of scholarly differences on this matter. The correct scholarly view is that if a woman miscarries a foetus that was fully formed, then she should stop praying and fasting because this is nifaas. If it was not fully formed then her blood is irregular bleeding and she should not stop praying and fasting. The minimum time in which the foetus becomes fully formed is eighty-one days (from conception).
The scholars of the Standing Committee said:
If the foetus was fully formed, in the sense that its limbs (hands and feet) and head had appeared, it is haraam to have intercourse with the woman so long as she is still bleeding, for up to forty days. It is permissible to have intercourse with her at times when the bleeding stops within forty days, after she does ghusl. But if the limbs had not yet appeared in the embryo, then it is permissible to have intercourse with her even if that is immediately after the miscarriage, because that is not regarded as nifaas, rather it is irregular bleeding and she can pray and fast in that case.
Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 5/422, 423.
Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz said:
If a woman miscarries something in which human features such as a head, arm or leg etc can be distinguished, then the rulings of nifaas apply and she should not pray or fast, and it is not permissible for her husband to have intercourse with her until she becomes pure or until forty days have passed. If she becomes pure before forty days have passed, then she has to do ghusl and pray and fast in Ramadaan, and it is permissible for her husband to have intercourse with her.
But if no human features can be distinguished in what is passed by the woman, and it looks like flesh with no distinguishable features, or it is blood, then she comes under the ruling of one who is suffering from istihaadah (non-menstrual vaginal bleeding), not the rulings on nifaas or menstruation. So she has to pray and fast in Ramadaan, and she is permissible for her husband… because this comes under the rulings on istihaadah according to the scholars.
Fataawa Islamiyyah, 1/243.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said:
The scholars said: If what is passed has clear human features, then her bleeding after that is regarded as nifaas, so she should stop praying and fasting, and her husband should avoid her until she becomes pure. If what comes out is unformed, then it is not regarded as the blood of nifaas, rather it is irregular bleeding which does not prevent her from praying or fasting, etc.
The scholars said: The earliest time at which distinguishable features may appear is eighty-one days.
And Allaah knows best.





-
-
Regards,
JAPHER SADIQ /-
-

Share

Menstruation and Post-Natal bleeding, - Dought& clear, - * Her period was longer than usual on several occasions. What should she do with regard to fasting?

Share

In my first year of menstruating, my period would last for 6 or 7 days, but in the second year it began to last for approximately nine days. At the end of the second year and in the third year, it began to last between two and three weeks. In Ramadan it lasted 18 days, starting three days before Ramadan, and lasting for 15 days of Ramadan. What is the ruling on that with regard to making up missed fasts?.
Praise be to Allaah.
The scholars differed concerning the maximum length of menses. The correct view is that there is no minimum or maximum length of menses, and that a woman’s period may become longer or shorter. What matters is that the blood that comes out is menstrual blood, regardless of how long it lasts.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyah], Ibn al-Mundhir and a number of scholars said: It is not correct to set a specific time limit. When a woman sees the blood that women recognize as menstrual blood, then it is menses. The evidence for that is as follows:
The general meaning of the verse in which Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):“They ask you concerning menstruation. Say: that is an Adha (a harmful thing for a husband to have a sexual intercourse with his wife while she is having her menses)” [al-Baqarah 2:222]. The words “Say: that is an Adha” imply a ruling connected to the reason, which is that it is adha. So if this blood, which is the adha, is seen, and it is not bleeding from a vein, then it is deemed to be menses. End quote.
Al-Sharh al-Mumti‘, 1/402
And he said:
There are some women who may remain pure (i.e., free of menses) for four months, then the menses may come and last for an entire month. It is -- and Allah knows best -- as if it is saved up then comes all at once. And there are some women who menstruate for three days every month, or four or five or ten days. End quote.
Al-Sharh al-Mumti‘, 1/402
Based on this, your period is the days on which there is bleeding, until you see the tuhr (white discharge signalling the end of the period), even if it lasts for more than fifteen days, so long as the bleeding does not continue for the entire month or only stops for one or two days, in which case it is istihaadah (non-menstrual bleeding).
And Allah knows best.







-
-
Regards,
JAPHER SADIQ /-
-

Share

Menstruation and Post-Natal bleeding, - Dought& clear, - * There is nothing wrong with a menstruating woman entering the mosque to take something she needs and then come out

Share

It is narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) asked me to hand him something from the mosque and I said: I am menstruating. He said: “Your menstruation is not in your hand.” I hope you can explain this hadeeth; does it mean that the menstruating woman cannot enter the mosque or do anything?.
Praise be to Allaah.
The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “I do not permit a menstruating woman or a person who is junub to enter the mosque.” And Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):“O you who believe! Approach not As‑Salaah (the prayer) when you are in a drunken state until you know (the meaning) of what you utter, nor when you are in a state of Janaaba (i.e. in a state of sexual impurity and have not yet taken a bath), except when travelling on the road (without enough water, or just passing through a mosque), till you wash your whole body” [al-Nisa’ 4:43]. An exception is made for people who are junub who are just passing through, and the same applies to menstruating women. The menstruating woman should not sit in the mosque, but she may pass through. There is nothing wrong with one who is passing through going from one door to another, or going in to get something from the mosque, such as a small mat or a book or a vessel and so on. When the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) told ‘Aa’ishah to hand him a small mat -- referring to a prayer mat made of papyrus on which he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) used to pray -- she told him that she was menstruating, and he said to her: “Your menstruation is not in your hand.” What is meant is that there is nothing to prevent her going into the mosque to get something; rather what is forbidden is for her to sit in the mosque. As for her passing through or going to get something, there is nothing wrong with that, and this hadeeth indicates that. End quote.
Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him).



-
-
Regards,
JAPHER SADIQ /-
-

Share

Dought & clear, - {Islamic history and biography}, - * The name of the wife of Ayyoob(peace be upon him)

Share

What is the name of the wife of Ayyoob (peace be upon him)?
Praise be to Allaah.
The historians and some of the mufassireen have stated that her name was Rahmah bint Meesha ibn Yoosuf ibn Ya’qoob.
But this is something which is not proven in any clear sound text, rather it was transmitted from the books of the People of the Book, or by some Muslims from them. We shall list those who were of this view and transmitted it:
1 – Al-Suyooti said: Ibn ‘Asaakir narrated that Wahb ibn Munabbih (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “The wife of Ayyoob (peace be upon him) was Rahmah (may Allaah be pleased with her) bint Meeshaa ibn Yoosuf ibn Ya’qoob ibn Ishaaq ibn Ibraaheem (peace be upon them).
(al-Durr al-Manthoor, 7/197. Also inTafseer al-Baydaawi, 3/310;Tafseeral-Qurtubi, 9/265;Tafseer al-Baghawi, 2/451)
2 – Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
But these Israa’eeli (i.e., Jewish) reports to be mentioned for the purpose of proving a point, they are not to be believed. They are of three types:
(i) Those which we know are sound because of evidence which we have which proves them to be true. These are saheeh.
(ii) Those which we know are false because of evidence which we have which contradicts them.
(iii) Those which we do not know whether they are true or false. So we do not believe in them and we do not disbelieve in them, but it is permissible to narrate them for the reasons given above.
Most of them are things which serve no religious purpose, hence the scholars of the People of the Book differ greatly concerning such things. The mufassireen also differed concerning them as a result of that, as they mentioned, for example, the names of the People of the Cave, the colour of their dog and their number, or what kind of tree the staff of Moosa came from, and other matters which Allaah did not mention in detail in the Qur’aan because knowing the specific details does not serve any worldly or religious purpose.
(Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 13/366-367).
Al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
What the mufassireen have said concerning the name of their dog – some said that its name was Qitmeer, and some said that its name was Hamdaan, etc. – we need not dwell on at length, because it serves no purpose. There are many things in the Qur’aan which neither Allaah nor His Messenger has explained to us in detail, and there are no proven reports concerning them; there is no benefit to be gained by researching such matters.
(Adwaa’ al-Bayaan, 4/48)
And Allaah knows best.



-
-
Regards,
JAPHER SADIQ /-
-

Share

Dought & clear, - {Islamic history and biography}, - * Our attitude towards Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah

Share

I heard of this person Yazeed Ibn Muawiyah. I heard that he once a calipha of the muslims and he was a drunken sadistic person, who was not really a muslim. Is this true? Please tell me his story. Thank you and may allah bless you.
Praise be to Allaah.
His name was Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan ibn Harb ibn Umayaah al-Umawi al-Dimashqi.
Al-Dhahabi said: he was the commander of that army during the campaign against Constantinople, among which were people such as Abu Ayyoob al-Ansaari. Yazeed was appointed by his father as his heir, so he took power after his father died in Rajab 60 AH at the age of thirty-three, but his reign lasted for less than four years.
Yazeed is one of those whom we neither curse nor love. There are others like him among the khaleefahs of the two states (Umawi/Umayyad and ‘Abbaasi/Abbasid) and the governors of various regions, indeed there were some among them who were worse than him. But the issue in the case of Yazeed is that he was came to power forty-nine years after the death of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); it was still close to the time of the Prophet and some of the Sahaabah were still alive such as Ibn ‘Umar who was more entitled to the position than him or his father or his grandfather.
His reign began with the killing of the martyr al-Husayn and it ended with the battle of al-Harrah, so the people hated him and he was not blessed with a long life. There were many revolts against him after al-Husayn, such as the people of Madeenah who revolted for the sake of Allaah, and Ibn al-Zubayr.
(Siyar A’laam al-Nubalaa’, part 4, p. 38)
Shaykh al-Islam described people’s attitudes towards Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah, and said:
The people differed concerning Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan, splitting into three groups, two extreme and one moderate.
One of the two extremes said that he was a kaafir and a munaafiq, that he strove to kill the grandson of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to spite the Messenger of Allaah and to take revenge on him, and to avenge his grandfather ‘Utbah, his grandfather’s brother Shaybah and his maternal uncle al-Waleed ibn ‘Utbah and others who were killed by the companions of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), by ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and others on the day of Badr and in other battles – and things of that nature. To have such a view is easy for the Raafidis who regard Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmaan as kaafirs, so it is much easier for them to regard Yazeed as a kaafir.
The second extreme group think that he was a righteous man and a just leader, that he was one of the Sahaabah who were born during the time of the Prophet and were carried and blessed by him. Some of them give him a higher status than Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and some of them regard him as a prophet. Both views are obviously false to one who has the least common sense and who has any knowledge of the lives and times of the earliest Muslims. This view is not attributable to any of the scholars who are known for following the Sunnah or to any intelligent person who has reason and experience.
The third view is that he was one of the kings of the Muslims, who did good deeds and bad deeds. He was not born until the caliphate of ‘Uthmaan. He was not a kaafir but it was because of him that the killing of al-Husayn happened, and he did what he did to the people of al-Harrah. He was not a Sahaabi, nor was he one of the righteous friends of Allaah. This is the view of most of the people of reason and knowledge and of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah.
Then they divided into three groups, one which cursed him, one which loved him and one which neither cursed him nor loved him. This is what was reported from Imaam Ahmad, and this is the view of the fair-minded among his companions and others among the Muslims. Saalih ibn Ahmad said: I said to my father, some people say that they love Yazeed. He said, O my son, does anyone love Yazeed who believes in Allaah and the Last Day? I said, O my father, why do you not curse him? He said, O my son, when did you ever see your father curse anybody?
Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi said, when he was asked about Yazeed: according to what I have heard he is neither to be cursed nor to be loved. He said, I also heard that our grandfather Abu ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Taymiyah was asked about Yazeed and he said: we do not deny his good qualities or exaggerate about them. This is the fairest opinion.



-
-
Regards,
JAPHER SADIQ /-
-

Share

Dought & clear, - {Islamic history and biography}, - * The people of the Cave are the people of the Inscription

Share

Were the people of the Cave the people of the Inscription, or were these two different groups of people?
Praise be to Allaah. Shaykh al-Shanqeeti said, commenting on the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): “Do you think that the people of the Cave and the Inscription (the news or the names of the people of the Cave) were a wonder among Our Signs?” [al-Kahf 18:9]
The apparent meaning is that the People of the Cave and of the Inscription were all one group, mentioned in conjunction with two things. This is in contrast to those who say that the people of the Cave were one group and the people of the Inscription were another group. Allaah told this story to His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon them) in this soorah, and He did not mention anything about the people of the Inscription. This is unlike those who claim that the people of the Cave were three persons behind whom the rock fell and blocked the entrance of the cave in which they were, so they prayed to Allaah by virtue of their righteous deeds; they were one who honoured his parents, one who was chaste, and one who was a hired labourer. Their story is well known and is proven inal-Saheeh, but interpreting this aayah as meaning that these were the people referred to therein is far-fetched as you can see. It should be noted there is nothing about the story of the people of the cave, their names and which part of the earth they were in that has been narrated in any sound report from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), in addition to what is mentioned in the Qur’aan. The Mufassireen quoted many of those details from the Israa’eeliyyaat (reports from Jewish sources) which we will not quote here because they cannot be relied upon.


-
-
Regards,
JAPHER SADIQ /-
-

Share