As for Abū Hanīfa, he takes an established menstrual pattern into account if one exists, but considers neither distinguishable bleeding nor the usual duration of women’s periods. If she has no established pattern, he regards her as menstruating for the maximum duration if this is her first menstrual period; otherwise, for the minimum duration.

Mālik takes distinguishable bleeding into account, but considers neither an established pattern nor the usual duration. If he takes neither the established pattern nor the usual duration into account, he does not regard her as menstruating; rather, she continues praying at all times, except during the first month. In that month, should she be regarded as menstruating for the maximum duration, or for her customary duration with three additional days as a precaution? Two positions are reported from him.

Al-Shāfiʿī takes both distinguishable bleeding and an established pattern into account, but not the usual duration. If both are present, he gives precedence to distinguishable bleeding; if neither is present, she continues praying at all times. His application of precaution in matters of obligation, prohibition, and permissibility entails great hardship, both in understanding the rulings and in putting them into practice.

Thus, the three Prophetic rulings transmitted concerning these situations have been applied by the jurists versed in hadith, and a group of other jurists agrees with them on each ruling.