or outside those days, whether or not they are accompanied by blood, for the ruling that applies to one and the same substance does not change of itself.

Those who sought to harmonize the two reports said: the ḥadīth of Umm ʿAṭiyyah refers to the time after the bleeding has ceased, whereas the ḥadīth of ʿĀʾishah concerns the period immediately following its cessation; or, alternatively, that ʿĀʾishah’s report pertains to the actual days of menstruation, while that of Umm ʿAṭiyyah pertains to days outside the menstrual period.

A group of scholars took the ḥadīth of Umm ʿAṭiyyah at its apparent meaning and regarded yellowish or brownish discharge as of no legal consequence at all—neither during the menstrual days nor outside them, whether or not it is found with blood or after the bleeding stops. They relied on the Prophet’s words, “Menstrual blood is dark blood that is recognizable,” and maintained that yellowish and brownish discharge is not blood at all but rather one of the other fluids secreted by the womb. This is the view adopted by Ibn Ḥazm.

Issue Six
The jurists differed about the sign by which a woman knows that she has become pure. Some held that the sign of purity is either the appearance of the white discharge or complete dryness; this was the opinion of Ibn Ḥabīb among Mālik’s companions. According to them, it makes no difference whether a woman’s normal sign of purity is the white discharge or dryness—whichever of the two she sees marks the end of menstruation.

Others drew a distinction, saying: if a woman customarily sees the white discharge, she is not deemed pure until she sees it; but if she is among those who do not see it, then dryness is her sign of purity. This view is recorded from Mālik in the Mudawwanah.

The reason for their disagreement is that some jurists took a woman’s personal habit into account, while others looked only to the disappearance of blood. It has also been said that the woman whose habit is dryness attains purity by seeing the white discharge but that the one whose habit is the white discharge does not attain purity through dryness; the opposite has likewise been reported, and all of these opinions belong to the Mālikī school.

Issue Seven
The jurists also disagreed about the woman with chronic non-menstrual bleeding (mustaḥāḍah) when her bleeding persists: at what point does she assume the rulings of a menstruant? They likewise differed about a menstruant whose bleeding is prolonged: when does she revert to the rulings of a mustaḥāḍah? This has been discussed previously.

Mālik held that a mustaḥāḍah is, in principle, treated as ritually pure until the blood changes so as to resemble menstrual blood, and that occurs once her bleeding continues for a period longer than the minimum interval of purity. At that point she is considered menstruating—that is, when two conditions coincide: (1) a change in the color or quality of the blood, and (2) the passage, during her istiḥāḍah, of a span of days that could have constituted a period of purity. If these two conditions are not met, she remains a mustaḥāḍah perpetually.

Abū Ḥanīfah said: if she has a customary period, she refrains from prayer for the days of that habit; if the bleeding is her first experience, she abstains for the maximum length of menstruation, which in his view is ten days.

Al-Shāfiʿī said: if she is able to distinguish the character of the blood, she bases her rulings on that distinction; if she is a woman of established habit, she follows her habit. Should she possess both an established habit and the ability to distinguish, he expressed two opinions: according to one, she relies on distinguishing the blood; according to the other, she follows her habit.