There are two formulations here:

The first is to say: “If something prevents me, then I may exit ihram wherever I am prevented.” That is, the place at which I exit the state of ihram for the rite, or the time at which I exit it.

The second is to say: “If something prevents me, then I have the right to exit ihram.”

The difference between the two is that if he says, “Then I may exit ihram wherever I am prevented,” he exits ihram as soon as the impediment occurs, because he has made exiting ihram conditional upon a condition, and the condition has occurred. When the condition occurs, that which is conditional upon it occurs. But if he says, “If something prevents me, then I have the right to exit ihram,” then, once the impediment occurs, he has a choice: if he wishes, he may exit ihram; and if he wishes, he may continue.

If it is asked: Does fear include a pregnant woman’s fear of postpartum bleeding, or a woman in a state of purity fearing menstruation?

The answer is: Yes, without doubt. For when a woman experiences postpartum bleeding, she is unable to perform the rites; moreover, postpartum bleeding usually lasts a long time. The same applies to a menstruating woman: if her family or travel companions will not remain with her until she becomes pure, then, if she expects that menstruation may occur, she should make the stipulation.

Issue: A woman had not considered the possibility of menstruation, but she had fatigue or an illness and feared that, because of this illness, she would be unable to complete the rites. So she said, “If something prevents me, then I may exit ihram wherever I am prevented,” intending the illness. But then the illness subsided or disappeared, and menstruation occurred. Should we say that the circumstances underlying her intention restrict the general wording? Or should we say that the general wording includes menstruation?

The answer is that either is possible. But whoever holds that the general wording is to be applied