Tuesday, February 28, 2012

They became Muslim after they got divorced and they have a daughter. What are the rights of both of them?

If a couple where Kuffar and the woman found out she was pregnant, then the male asked her to get an abortion. She refused regardless of his suggestion and had the child. Later the couple became Muslim together, but were divorced. Does the father still have more right then the mother when he clearly did not desire for the child to be born in the first place? (It is a female child).

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly: 

We praise Allaah for having guided you both to the truth. This is the greatest blessing that Allaah can bestow upon His slave, because it brings happiness in this world and in the Hereafter. We ask Allaah to help you to do that which He loves and which pleases Him, and to help you to remain steadfast in following His religion. 

Secondly: 

You did well by refusing to have an abortion, because abortion is a sin, whether it was done before the soul is breathed into the foetus or afterwards, but the sin is greater after the soul has been breathed into the foetus. 

This has been explained in the answers to questions no. 40269 and 42321. 

Thirdly: 

If a man divorces his wife, and they have a child, then according to Islam the mother’s right to custody of the child is greater than the father’s, so long as there is no impediment such as her having remarried or being lacking in religious commitment or failing to take proper care of the child. 

This has been discussed in the answers to questions no. 8189, 20705 and 21516. 

Fourthly: 

The father’s bad conduct in demanding an abortion does not mean that his rights are waived, such as the right to having the child attributed to him, care, spending, naming, and visiting the child when he or she is in the mother’s custody. He also has the right to custody if there is some impediment to the mother taking custody, such as if she remarries. 

We hope that Allaah will forgive him as he has become Muslim, for Islam erases the sins that come before it. 

Fifthly:

 The questioner asks: “Does the father still have more rights than the mother”? 

It should be noted that the father’s rights are not always greater than the mother’s, rather her rights take precedence with regard to custody, as stated above, and her right also takes precedence over his with regard to good treatment. It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: A man came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said: “O Messenger of Allaah, who among people is most deserving of my good company?” He said: “Your mother.” He said, “Then who?’ He said, “Then your mother.” He said, “Then who?’ He said: “Then your mother.” He said: “Then who?” He said: “Then your father.” 

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (5971) and Muslim (2548) 

Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

This indicates that we are urged to honour our relatives, and that the mother is the most deserving of them, then after her comes the father, then the next closest and the next closest. The scholars said: the reason why the mother is given precedence is because of her great efforts for the sake of the child, her kindness towards him and her service; she suffers hardship in pregnancy, then she suffers hardship when giving birth to him, then she breastfeeds him, then she raises him, serves him and takes care of him when he is sick, and so on. Al-Haarith al-Muhaasibi narrated that the scholars were unanimously agreed that the mother is to be given precedence in kind treatment over the father. Al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad narrated that there was a difference of opinion concerning that, but the majority said that she is given precedence. Some of them said they should be honoured equally. He said: some of them attributed this view to Maalik. But the correct view is the first one, because this is clearly stated in these ahaadeeth. End quote. 

And Allaah knows best.

Ruling on one who kills another in self-defence and dies – does he have to pay blood-money or offer expiation?

My father died and he had killed someone in self defence, and the family of the one who was killed had accepted the diyah (blood money). What is the expiation? Please note that he did not fast for two months or free a slave or feed the poor, and he had children. What is required of them?.

Praise be to Allaah.

The Muslim is obliged to defend himself and his family from any aggressor. He should ward him off with the slightest means, but if the assailant cannot be warded off except by killing, then it is permissible for the one who is being attacked to kill him, and he is not subject to retaliation (qisaas) and he does not have to pay any blood money (diyah) or offer any expiation (kafaarah), because sharee’ah has given him permission to kill in this case, and the slain aggressor is threatened with Hell, whereas the victim of aggression, if he is killed, is a martyr (shaheed) in sha Allaah. It makes no difference whether the aggressor is a Muslim or a kaafir. 

It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: A man came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said: O Messenger of Allaah, what do you think if a man comes wanting to take my property? He said: “Do not give him your property.”  He said: What if he fights me? He said: “Fight him.” He said: What if he kills me? He said: “Then you will be a martyr.” He said: What if I kill him? He said: “He will be in Hell.” Narrated by Muslim (140). 

It was narrated that Sa’eed ibn Zayd (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The one who is killed defending his wealth is a martyr, the one who is killed defending his family is a martyr, the one who is killed defending his religion is a martyr, and the one who is killed defending his life is a martyr.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (1421), al-Nasaa’i (4095), Abu Dawood (4772); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Irwa’ al-Ghaleel (708). 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

The Sunnah and scholarly consensus are agreed that if a Muslim assailant cannot be warded off except by killing him, then he may be killed, even if the wealth that he wants to take is a small amount, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said in the saheeh hadeeth: “The one who is killed defending his wealth is a martyr, the one who is killed defending his life is a martyr, and the one who is killed defending his womenfolk is a martyr…” Fighting off an assailant is established in the Sunnah and by scholarly consensus. End quote. 

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (28/540, 541). 

In al-Rawd al-Murabbi’ (p. 677) it says: 

If a person or one of his womenfolk, such as his mother, daughter, sister or wife, is attacked, or his property, whether a slave or an animal, is attacked, then he has the right to defend that by the least means that he thinks will ward off the attack. If he is able to ward it off with the least means then it is haraam for him to do more than that because there is no need for it. 

If he cannot ward off the attacker except by killing him, then he may do that, i.e., kill the assailant, and he is not liable for that, because he killed him to ward off his evil. End quote. 

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) said: 

The one who is attacked by someone who wants to kill him or attack his womenfolk such as his mother, daughter, sister or wife and violate their honour, or is attacked by someone who wants to take or destroy his property, has the right to defend himself against that, whether the attacker is a human or an animal. He should ward it off with the least that he thinks most likely will be able to ward it off, because if he is not allowed to defend himself that will lead to destruction and harm against himself or his womenfolk or his wealth, and because if he did not do that, people would overpower one another. If he cannot ward off the assailant except by killing him, then he has the right to do that, and he is not liable, because he killed him in order to ward off his evil. If the victim is killed then he is a martyr because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If a person’s wealth is sought unlawfully and he fights and is killed, then he is a martyr.” Narrated by Muslim and others from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him). And he said:  A man came and said: O Messenger of Allaah, what do you think if a man comes wanting to take my property? … and he narrated the hadeeth quoted above. 

Al-Mulakhkhas al-Fiqhi (2/443). 

The person who is attacked should not hasten to kill the assailant until after he has exhausted other means of warding him off, such as reminding him of Allaah, scaring him and threatening him, seeking help from other people, or seeking the help of the police. But he may hasten to kill him if he fears that the aggressor is about to kill him. 

It was narrated from Qaboos ibn Mukhaariq that his father said: A man came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said: What if a man comes to me wanting to take my wealth? He said: “Remind him of Allaah.” He said: What is he pays no heed? He said: “Seek help against him from those who are around you of the Muslims.” He said: What if there are no Muslims around me? He said: “Then seek help against him from the ruler.” He said: What if the ruler is faraway from me? He said: Then fight him to defend your wealth, until you become one of the martyrs in the Hereafter or you protect your wealth.” Narrated by al-Nasaa’i (4081) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Nasaa’i. 

Secondly: 

This applies if it is proven that he killed him in self-defence with evidence such as the testimony of witnesses, or if the heirs of the slain person believe that he killed him in self-defence, or if there is strong circumstantial evidence to indicate that, such as if the slain person was known for evil and corruption, and he threatened to kill him – for example – in front of other people and so on. 

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

If this person admits to killing him and claims that he did it in self-defence but the heir of the slain person does not believe him, then qisaas (retaliation) must be carried out. It says in al-Insaaf: this is our view, and the view of our companions. But if the slain person was known for aggression and evildoing, and there is circumstantial evidence that points to what the killer is saying, then it says in al-Insaaf: it says in al-Furoo’: No qisaas is required if he is known for evildoing. I say: This is the correct view, and circumstantial evidence should be taken into account. End quote. 

Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn Ibraaheem (11/255, 256) 

Based on that, if your father killed this man in self-defence, then he does not have to do anything, whether that is offering expiation or paying blood money. 

And Allaah knows best.

Can he accept money in return for being beaten and humiliated in front of people?

I was given some money as the result of my being beaten with shoes in front of a large number of people. This money was decided by a traditional council. What is the ruling on this money? Can I give some of it in charity to the poor and needy? Do I have the right to spend some of this money on my living expenses?.

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly: 

There is nothing wrong with referring for judgement to those traditional councils with which people deal to resolve conflicts and disputes, so long as the one who is passing judgement has knowledge of sharee’ah so that he can judge between people in accordance with that which Allaah revealed, and not according to whims and desires or traditions and customs, many of which go against the rulings of Allaah. If they rule in accordance with the rulings of Allaah, this is what is desirable, but if they rule in ways that go against the rulings of Allaah, there is no point in their rulings, and it is a false ruling and must be rejected. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“Do they then seek the judgement of (the days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allaah for a people who have firm Faith”

[al-Maa’idah 5:50] 

Secondly: 

The scholars differed concerning the ruling on slapping, punching, etc, and whether qisaas or ta’zeer punishment is required in such cases. The majority are of the view that ta’zeer is required but there is no qisaas. The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them all) and the prominent scholars were of the view that qisaas is required. 

Imam al-Bukhaari (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Kitaab al-Diyaat, under the chapter heading “If a group of people have killed or injured one man, do all of them have to pay the diyah or be punished with the law of qisaas?” 

Abu Bakr, Ibn al-Zubayr, ‘Ali and Suwayd ibn Muqarrin ruled that qisaas was required in a case of slapping. ‘Umar ruled that qisaas was required in a case of striking with a stick. ‘Ali ruled that qisaas was required in a case of three lashes with a whip. And Shurayh ruled that qisaas was required for a case of lashes and scratches, i.e., wounds. End quote  

This view is the correct one. Those who narrated that there was consensus on the opposite view were wrong, rather if anyone were to claim that there was consensus among the Sahaabah on this ruling, they would not be far off the mark. 

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:  

The people differed concerning this issue – which is qisaas in cases of slapping, beating and other things in which the person who is retaliating cannot do the same to his opponent as was done to him in all aspects – is qisaas justified in this case, or should a punishment of another type be meted out, which is ta’zeer? There are two views: 

The more correct view is that qisaas is prescribed in such cases. This is the view of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, as was proven from them and narrated from them by Ahmad and Abu Ishaaq al-Jawzjaani in al-Mutarjim. This was stated by Imam Ahmad, and our Shaykh (may Allaah have mercy on him) – i.e., Ibn Taymiyah – said: It is the view of the majority of the salaf. 

The second view is that qisaas is not prescribed in such cases. This is the view narrated from al-Shaafa’i, Maalik and Abu Haneefah, and it is the view of the later followers of Imam Ahmad, to such an extent that some of them narrated that there was consensus on the ruling that there is no qisaas in this case! 

But that is not the case, rather the reports that the consensus of the Sahaabah was that qisaas is prescribed are more likely to be true than the reports which say that there was consensus that it is not prescribed. It is proven from the Rightly-Guided Caliphs and no opposition to that is known. 

Both views are based on the fact that Allaah has enjoined justice in that, so it remains to be seen which of the two options is closest to justice? 

Those who say that qisaas is not required say that retaliating in like manner is not possible in this case, so it is as if justice requires using another form of punishment, which is ta’zeer. Qisaas can only be by retaliating in like manner, hence it is not required in the case of wounding or cutting, unless it is possible to do the same things. When it is not possible to retaliate in kind with regard to wounding or cutting, then we have to resort to the diyah idea, and the same applies to slapping and the like, where we have to resort to ta’zeer if retaliating in like manner is not possible.  

Those who say that qisaas is permissible say: Qisaas in such cases is closer to Qur’aan and Sunnah and qiyaas (analogy) and justice than ta’zeer. As for Qur’aan, Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):  “The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof” [al-Shoora 42:40] and “Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him” [al-Baqarah 2:194].

It is well-known that responding in kind is required according as much as possible, so a slap is more similar to a slap than ta’zeer, and a blow is more similar to a blow than ta’zeer, because the ta’zeer may be a blow in a different place, that does not resemble the original blow in type or location, or extent. So you are trying to avoid the unavoidable difference between two slaps and you ended up with a greater difference (by choosing ta’zeer) without any evidence from texts or analogy.  

They said: As for the Sunnah [Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) quoted a number of ahaadeeth which prove that qisaas is allowed in such cases]. Then he said: If there was no evidence concerning this matter except the practice of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, that would be sufficient evidence. 

Haashiyat Ibn al-Qayyim ‘ala Tahdheeb Sunan Abi Dawood (7/336, 337). See also: al-Fataawa al-Kubra (3/402). 

Thirdly: 

Once it is proven that qisaas is prescribed for the beating you received from the other party, you have the option of forgiving him and letting him off if you think that he regrets it and has prayed to Allaah for forgiveness and has apologized and set himself straight. Or you may retaliate (qisaas) by doing the same as was done to you without overstepping the mark or wronging him. Or you may forego your right to qisaas in return for some material compensation as determined by the shar’i judge. 

If you take retaliation by doing to him the same as he did to you, then it is not permissible for you to take any money in return for the humiliation, because you have taken your right. By the same token, any compensation that is awarded to you is in return for the beating, not the humiliation, because humiliation is an intangible harm, and it is not permissible to take material compensation for this kind of harm. The majority of scholars are agreed on this point. 

It says in a report of the Islamic Fiqh Council (no. 109 (3/12): 

The kind of harm for which it is permissible to receive compensation is actual material harm … it does not include intangible harm.  

It says in al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (13/40), under the heading “Compensation for intangible harm”: 

We have not found any of the fuqaha’ who discussed this, rather it is a modern idea. We do not find in the books of fiqh any faqeeh who spoke of financial compensation for any kind of intangible harm. End quote. 

In conclusion: What you are entitled to is qisaas, or letting him off completely – which is the best choice if it seems that he has mended his ways or regretted it – or accepting compensation in return for having been beaten. If you avail yourself of the right to qisaas, then you have no right after that to any money. But if you are going to take your rights in the form of money only – which is what seems to be the case from your question – then there is nothing wrong with you making use of it for yourself or giving it in charity. 

And Allaah knows best.

The doctors aborted the foetus without her knowledge, out of fear for her life

Five years ago my mother got pregnant and in the fifth month of pregnancy the amniotic fluid leaked and she became ill. When she went to the doctor they decided to abort the foetus because it was weak, and he said that if it was left inside it would die and decompose which would poison my mother and put her in danger. My mother refused vehemently because she knows that that is haraam, and she asked for a different doctor, but the second doctor’s view was the same as the first doctor’s. When she refused they forced her to stay in the hospital and they did not let her leave. She was examined by a committee of doctors and they insisted on doing the abortion surgery, and they say that they would bear responsibility with regard to the child. One day, because my mother had so vehemently refused to have this operation, they took her to the operating theatre, saying that they were going to do an ultrasound to check on the foetus, but they did the operation and aborted the foetus. Until now she says that she does not know whether the foetus was alive or dead at the time of the surgery, because they did the operation on her without examining her or checking the heartbeat the foetus. My mother’s question is: Is there any sin on her for what happened when she had an abortion in the fifth month of pregnancy, without her consent? If that is the case, what expiation should she offer?.

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly: 

If the matter is as described, there is no sin on your mother – if we assume that there is any sin involved – because she did not consent and the operation was done without her knowledge. 

Secondly: 

If trustworthy doctors determined that leaving the foetus inside poses a danger to the mother’s life, it is permissible to abort it, even if that is after the soul has been breathed into it. 

It says in Ahkaam al-Janeen fi’l-Fiqh al-Islamiyyah by ‘Umar ibn Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem ‘Aamir: 

The fuqaha’ of the Sunni madhhabs are unanimously agreed that it is haraam to kill the foetus after the soul has been breathed into it – i.e., after 120 days since conception – and it is not permissible to kill it under any circumstances, unless continuation of the pregnancy will lead to the mother’s death. 

Thus it is clear to you that abortion after the soul has been breathed into the foetus is a crime and it is not permissible to do that except in cases of extreme and definite necessity, not assumed or imagined necessity, if it is proven that there is such a necessity, i.e., if leaving the foetus will pose a danger to the mother’s life. However it should be noted that with the advances in modern medicine and the means available nowadays, abortion to save the mother’s life has become something very rare indeed. End quote. 

The Islamic Fiqh Council stated that if the pregnancy has reached 120 days, it is not permissible to abort it, even if medical examinations show that the foetus is deformed, unless it is proven by a council of trustworthy, specialist doctors that continuation of the pregnancy will pose a danger to the life of the mother. In that case it is permissible to abort it, whether it is deformed or not, so as to ward off the greater of the two harms. End quote. 

The Council of Senior Scholars in the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries issued a statement in which it says: 

After the end of four months it is not permissible to abort the foetus unless a number of trustworthy specialist doctors decide that leaving the foetus in his mother’s womb will cause her death. That is after exhausting all means of trying to preserve his life. The concession allowing abortion in this case is only allowed in order to ward off the greater of the two harms and serve the greater of the two interests. End quote from al-Fataawa al-Jaami’ah (3/1055). 

See also the answer to question no. 42321. 

And Allaah knows best.

From learning Quran online Blog

And important note that we want to discuss and share with you it is about Quran reading and doing Quran recitation online to understand it, Ramadan is the month when the beautiful the Holy Quran has been revealed.  A miracle by the creator of the worlds, Allah (SWT)  Should we not glorify him by reading quran the gift he has sent down for us and learn Arabic Quran by heart  to feel the power of it and we as Muslim should try to learn quran with translation to understand it  wile we do Quran memorization and let our heart fill will tears of glory and wash away our sins in the month of Ramadan many people teach quran  and we should participate in teaching quran as much as we could because it is the noble cause to spread the word of Allah and the quran tutor will get the reword in the day of judgment “Will they not meditate on the Quran, or are there locks on the hearts”, Quran for kids , Surah Muhammad, Verse 24. Here is an interesting tajweed quran reciter where you can listen to quran from top Koran reciters and read the Koran with different translation and plz link to it and share it to promote islam

End from online Quran reciter blog

Ruling on abortion, divorcing a pregnant woman and putting pressure on a wife to make her give up her rights

What is the Islamic ruling on a husband who tries to make his wife have an abortion in the second month of pregnancy because he wants to divorce her, by giving her medicine against her wishes, although the abortion did not happen? Is that halaal or haraam? What is the expiation for that deed? Is it permissible to divorce a wife when she is pregnant? What is the ruling on forcing a wife to give up her rights before she is divorced?.

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly: 

Aborting pregnancy is not permissible, whether the soul has been breathed into the foetus or not, but after the soul has been breathed into it, the prohibition is more emphatic. If a husband orders his wife to have an abortion, it is not permissible for her to obey him. 

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

As for trying to abort a pregnancy, that is not permissible so long as the death of the foetus in utero is not proven; if that is proven then it is permissible. 

Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Ibraaheem (11/151). 

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) said:  

Firstly: 

Aborting pregnancy is not permissible. If a woman is pregnant the pregnancy must be protected, and it is haraam for the mother to harm this pregnancy or to put any kind of pressure on it, because it is a trust that Allaah has placed in her womb and it has rights, so it is not permissible to mistreat it, harm it or destroy it. The shar’i evidence indicates that it is haraam to abort pregnancy. 

The fact that she cannot give birth without surgery is no justification for abortion. Many women cannot give birth without surgery, so this is not an excuse to abort the surgery. 

Secondly: 

If the soul has been breathed into this foetus and it has begun to move, then she aborted it after that and it died, then she is regarded as having killed a soul, so she must offer expiation by freeing a slave. If that is not possible then she must fast for two consecutive months as repentance to Allaah. That applies if it was four months old, because in that case the soul had been breathed into it. If she aborted it after that, then she must offer expiation as described above. This matter is very serious and cannot be taken lightly. If she could not bear the pregnancy because she is sick, then she should take medicines that prevent pregnancy before it begins, such as taking pills to delay getting pregnant until she regains her health and strength. 

Al-Muntaqa (5/301, 302). 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about a man who said to his wife: Abort what is in your womb and the sin will be on me. If she did that in obedience to him, what expiation must they offer? 

He replied: 

If she did that, then they must both offer expiation by freeing a believing slave. If they cannot do that, then they must fast for two consecutive months, and they must give a male or female slave to his heirs who did not kill him, not to the father because the father is the one who ordered that he be killed, so he does not deserve anything.  

The phrase “male or female slave” refers to the diyah for the foetus, the value of a male or female slave, which the scholars set at one-tenth of the diyah for the mother. 

The ruling on abortion has been discussed previously in more than one question. Please see: 13317, 42321 and 12733. 

Secondly: 

With regard to divorcing a pregnant woman, it is a sunnah talaaq. It is widely believed among many of the common folk that it is contrary to the Sunnah, but there is no basis or evidence for their view. 

Muslim (1471) narrated the story of how Ibn ‘Umar divorced his wife, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Tell him to take her back and divorce her when she is pure (not menstruating) or is pregnant.” 

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said: 

With regard to the pregnant woman, there is no difference of opinion among the scholars that she may be divorced according to the Sunnah from the beginning of the pregnancy to the end, because her ‘iddah is until she gives birth. Similarly it was proven from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Umar that he told him to divorce her (his wife) when she was pure (not menstruating) or was pregnant, and there is no distinction between the beginning or end of pregnancy. 

Al-Tamheed (15/80). 

We have quoted the fatwa of Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) about the ruling on divorcing a pregnant woman in the answer to question no. 12287. 

Thirdly: 

It is not permissible for a husband to take any of his wife’s property unless she gives it willingly, including her mahr (dowry), unless she has committed an act of blatant immorality, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it, and enjoy it without fear of any harm (as Allaah has made it lawful)”

[al-Nisa’ 4:4] 

“and you should not treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the Mahr you have given them, unless they commit open illegal sexual intercourse”

[al-Nisa’ 4:19] 

Ibn Qudaamah said:  

[The scholars] are unanimously agreed that it is haraam to take her wealth except in the case of wilful defiance (nushooz) or bad conduct on her part. Ibn al-Mundhir narrated that al-Nu’maan said: If the wrongdoing and mistreatment comes from him and she separated from him by means of khula’, then it is permissible but he is sinning; what he did is not permissible for him but he should not be forced to return what he took.  

Ibn al-Mundhir said: What he says is contrary to the apparent meaning of the Book of Allaah, and contrary to the proven report from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and contrary to the consensus of most of the scholars. 

Al-Mughni (3/137). 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (32/283): 

It is not permissible for a man to treat his wife with harshness and put pressure on her until she gives up some of the dowry, or to beat her for that purpose. But if she commits an act of blatant immorality, he has the right to treat her harshly so that she will give him something in return for letting her go, and he may hit her. This is something that is between a man and Allaah. As for the wife’s family, they should find out who is in the right and support him or her. If it becomes clear to them that she is the one who has transgressed the limits set by Allaah and has been unfaithful to her husband, then she is the wrongdoer and transgressor so she should give something n return for divorce. End quote. 

What is meant by an act of blatant immorality (translated as “illegal sexual intercourse”) in the verse “and you should not treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the Mahr you have given them, unless they commit open illegal sexual intercourse”[al-Nisa’ 4:19] is zina (adultery) and lack of understanding and bad conduct, such as speaking bad words or mistreating her husband. 

See Tafseer al-Sa’di, p. 242 

And Allaah knows best.

Monday, February 20, 2012

She is unable to use water. When is tayammum prescribed?

I know this lady that when she does wudu her skin has a problem with the water this makes her unable to pray.
What should she do if she has a problem with water?

Praise be to Allaah.  

Whoever cannot do wudoo’ with water has to do tayammum and pray with tayammum. Tayammum (dry ablution) means striking the palms of one's hands on the ground then wiping the face and palms.

 It should be noted that Tayammum is prescribed by Allaah when there is no water or when a person is unable to use it because of sickness and the like. Allaah 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. And if you are ill, or on a journey, or one of you comes after answering the call of nature, or you have been in contact with women (by sexual relations) and you find no water, perform Tayammum with clean earth and rub therewith your faces and hands (Tayammum). Truly, Allaah is Ever Oft‑Pardoning, Oft‑Forgiving” [al-Nisa’ 4:43]

An incontinent person should make a new wudoo’ for each obligatory prayer

I understand that a person who finds it difficult to remain tahir due to circumstances beyond their control, eg urination problem etc it is not necessary to continually clean up if it is too much of a strain and the person should do fresh wudo before every prayer. What if the prayer for some reason is prayed late eg if 'Asr is done 30 minutes before Maghrib, is a fresh wudo for maghrib necessary for this small time gap? Also if one does wudo for Juma'h prayer one hour early and sits in the mosque waiting for prayer is this wudo adequate or is another one necessary, if it is alright then will the wudo last all the way until just before 'Asr time?

Praise be to Allaah.

The person who is suffering from incontinence should make a new and separate wudoo’ for each prayer when the time comes, even if he has just made wudoo’ for another prayer a short time before. This is because the Prophet taught the woman who suffers from istihaadah (prolonged non-menstrual vaginal bleeding) to do this. ‘Aa’ishah said: “Faatimah bint Abi Hubaysh came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said: ‘O Messenger of Allaah, I am a woman who experiences istihaadah and I do not become clean from bleeding. Should I forget about salaah?’ He said: ‘No, that is from a vein; it is not menses. When your period starts, then stop praying, and when it ends, wash the blood from your body and pray again.’” Abu Mu’aawiyah said in his hadeeth: “He said: ‘Do wudoo’ for each prayer, until the time for the next prayer comes…’” Abu ‘Eesaa said: “The hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah is a saheeh hasan hadeeth, and this is the opinion of more than one scholar among the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the Taabi’een. It is also the opinion of Sufyaan al-Thawri, Maalik, Ibn al-Mubaarak and al-Shaafi’i that when the woman who suffers from istihaadah finishes her regular period, she should do ghusl, then do wudoo’ for each prayer.” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi, 116; the hadeeth was reported by al-Bukhaari, no. 221).

Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “The ruling on non-menstrual blood (istihaadah) is the same as the ruling on anything that breaks wudoo’: she should do wudoo’ for each prayer, but she should not pray more than one fard prayer with that wudoo’, whether she is praying on time or is making up the prayer later, because of the apparent meaning of the hadeeth, “You should do wudoo’ for each prayer.” This is the opinion of the majority of scholars. (Fath al-Baari, Kitaab al-hayd, Bab al-istihaadah). The same ruling applies to the person who suffers from continual incontinence or wind. You can pray as many naafil prayers as you like with the wudoo’ you made for a fard prayer, until the time for that fard prayer is over. And Allaah knows best.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Online Quran Reading at home | Learn to Read Holy Quran Live

Online Quran Reading


"Quran reading" is a term expressing the recitation of Holy Quran. It is a holy task and has been set necessary by Allah Almighty for the Muslims for the Success. Holy Book was revealed in arabic, we should know the translation to act upon it but as far as reading is concerned, We should recite it in arabic and for which learning arabic rules and regulations is the first step. To learn rules and regulations of reading arabic , please consult Noorani qaida on the left side of this page.

Quran Reading | Recitation of Quran | Online version of holy quran for reading | Read Quran Online


If you want to recite the online version of holy quran, Please click next for Teaching Quran Reading Holy Quran is a sawab as each alphabet owns ten points and as these points will be beneficial for us on the judgement day so its good to recite holy book as much as we can. Following the guidelines of Holy Quran gives extra sawab and only than someone is considered as a true muslim. For the Sake of Online Quran reading we have provided holy quran so that everyone who has the availibility of internet can recite it from any corner of the world.


What If I don't know how to read Quran ? Quran Education is necessary, If you don't know how to read quran , we have a number of qualified tutors who provide online quran teaching classes and make the people able to recite holy quran well. You can just take a free trial of 3 classes and can then decide that whether you should continue with us or not.


Conditions to read Quran online Surely , you should be neat and clean before reading Quran , You should do ablution before reciting the holy book. A complete guide of neatness will shortly be uploaded here.


Why Online Quran Reading Classes has charges This is one of the most important question people do ask , a simple answer to this question would be , we hardly meet our expenses to provide online classes to read quran . Audio and video conversation is used , Qualified tutors are hired for this holy task. We are one of the leading Institute providing quran classes at lowest possible charges to make people able to learn holy quran easily. and even then if someone is not able to pay the charges and have a desire to learn quran reading online , please contact us , we are always here for you.


Take a free trial of learn arabic quran quran reading from a qualified quran teacher



What do I need for online Quran classes ? Following is a short list of thing you would require for online classes.

i) A PC ( Personal Computer )

ii) A HeadPhone with a Microphone

iii) An Internet Connection ( DSL or Cable)

islamic articles, About islam mslims, Allah, Hadith, Quran online Memorize Quran Online tajweed quran learning quran online

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

The kinds of death announcements that are allowed and the kinds that are not allowed

Informing the relatives and friends of a person that he has died so that they may gather to offer the funeral prayer for him – is this included in the kinds of death announcement that are forbidden or is that permissible?.

Praise be to Allaah.  

This is a kind of death announcement that is permitted. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) announced the death of the Negus on the day on which he died. When the woman who used to clean the mosque died and the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) buried her and did not inform the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) of that, he said: “Why did you not inform me?” There is nothing wrong with announcing the death of a person so that more people will attend the funeral prayer, because that is something that was narrated in the Sunnah. But announcing it after the burial is not prescribed, rather that is the kind of death announcement that is forbidden.

Is it prescribed in Islam to give a speech or exhortation at the graveside?

Is it prescribed in Islam to give a speech or exhortation at the graveside? We have heard some people say that this was narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and some who say that it is Sunnah.

Praise be to Allaah.  

The view that nothing of the sort was narrated at all  is not correct, and the view that it is Sunnah is also not correct. 

There is no report that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to stand at the graveside or in the graveyard when the janaazah (body prepared for burial) was brought then exhort the people and remind them as if he were delivering a khutbah on Friday. This is what we have heard of people doing, but this is bid’ah and may lead in the future to things that are more serious. It may lead to the speaker referring of the deceased person who has been brought. For example, if the deceased was an evildoer, the speaker may say, “Look at this man, yesterday he used to play, yesterday he used to mock, yesterday he used to do such and such, but now he is in his grave and being brought to account.” Or he may say concerning a businessman: “Look at So and so, yesterday he was enjoying palaces and cars and servants and so on, and now he is in his grave.”

We think that there should not be a preacher delivering a khutbah at the graveside, because this is not Sunnah. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not stand after burying the deceased, or when waiting to bury the deceased, and address the people, and we have not heard of anyone doing this among those who came before us, who were closer to the Sunnah than us. Neither have we heard of this from the khulafa’ who came before them. The people at the time of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmaan and ‘Ali did not do this, as far as we know, and the best of guidance is the guidance of those who came before, if it is in accordance with the truth. With regard to the exhortation that is like regular talk in a gathering, there is nothing wrong with that, because it is narrated in al-Sunan that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went out to Baqee’ al-Gharqad (the graveyard of Madeenah) where some people were burying one of their number who had died. The deceased had not yet been placed in the lahd (niche in the side of the grave) and they were still digging his grave. He sat down and his companions sat around him, and he started telling them about what happens to a person when he is dying and after he has been buried. He spoke to them in a quiet manner, not in the manner of a khutbah. 

It is also narrated in Saheeh al-Bukhaari and elsewhere that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There is no one among you for whom his place in Paradise or in Hell has not been decreed.” They said: “O Messenger of Allaah, shall we not rely on that?” He said: “No; strive hard, for each person will be enabled to do that for which he was created.” 

The point is that the kind of exhortation where a man stands and delivers a speech at the burial or afterwards is not Sunnah and is not appropriate for the reasons I have mentioned. As for exhortation that does not take the form of a khutbah or speech, such as when a man sits and his companions sit with him, and he says a few words appropriate to the occasion, this is good and is following the example of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)

Ruling on gathering to offer condolences to the family of the deceased

What is the ruling on what many people do nowadays: if a family member dies the family gathers in his house and people come to offer them condolences, or that may be done in a large hall that is prepared for such occasions, or they may set up large tents for that?.

Praise be to Allaah.  

The custom of people staying in the house to receive condolences was not known at the time of the righteous salaf, hence some of the scholars have stated that it is an innovation (bid’ah). 

It says in al-Iqnaa’ wa Sharhahu: It is makrooh to sit and wait for condolences, i.e., when the bereaved sits in a place to receive condolences. When discussing the ruling on making food for the family of the deceased he said: That should be intended for the family of the deceased, not for those who gather at their house. That is makrooh because it is helping to do something that is makrooh, namely gathering at the house of the bereaved family. Al-Marwazi narrated from Ahmad that this was one of the actions of the Jaahiliyyah, and he denounced it strictly. Then he mentioned the hadeeth of Jareer ibn ‘Abd-Allaah (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said: We used to regard gathering with the family of the deceased and making food after the burial as (equivalent to) wailing for the deceased. Al-Nawawi said in Sharh al-Muhadhdhab: With regard to sitting for condolences, al-Shaafa’i, al-Musannaf and all our companions stated that it is makrooh. This was quoted by Abu Haamid in al-Ta’leeq and by others from the text of al-Shaafa’i. They said: That means when the family of the deceased gather in a house and those who want to offer condolences come to them. They said: Rather they should go about their business and whoever happens to meet them should offer condolences to them. 

Moreover, if the family of the deceased open the door for people to come and offer their condolences, it is as if they are saying to the people: We have been bereaved so come and offer us condolences. Placing an announcement in the newspaper, stating the place where condolences are to be offered is the same as verbally inviting everyone to come and offer condolences.

Competing to carry the bier

I notice in many Muslim funerals men rush to carry the bier and push others away. They run in from the back and those at the front move away so that many men can carry the bier. I ask them why they do this and they say the basis for this is that more people can get blessings for carrying the bier. This seems somewhat unusual because it makes it very likely that the body will actually be dropped and sometimes this indeed occurs. Is there any basis for this practice in Islam?

Praise be to Allaah.

What is narrated in saheeh reports from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is that it is Sunnah to follow the funeral. Al-Bukhaari and Muslim narrated in their Saheehs from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The duties of a Muslim towards his fellow Muslim are five: to return his greeting, visit him when he is sick, follow his funeral, accept invitations and say ‘Yarhamuk-Allaah (May Allaah have mercy on you) when he sneezes).’” 

They also narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever attends a funeral and prays over the deceased will have one qeeraat (of reward), and whoever attends until the deceased is buried will have two qeeraats.” He was asked, ‘What are these two qeeraats?” He said, “Like two huge mountains.” 

Undoubtedly whoever carries the bier or helps to carry it until the deceased is buried will attain this great reward and more, for even if there were no saheeh hadeeth concerning this matter, the general principles of sharee’ah indicate that carrying the bier of a Muslim is prescribed in Islam, because it involves treating the deceased with kindness. But if that kind treatment will lead to the problem of people pushing and shoving, as mentioned in the question, then warding off that evil takes precedence over trying to do good.  The reward of the one who hopes to gain reward by carrying the bier is not greater than the reward for the one who forsakes it out of consideration towards his Muslim brothers, and not because he is incapable of doing it. 

Taking the deceased back to his homeland

My friends brother inlaw expired last week(May his soul rest in peace). After his death his brother & other relatives took his dead body to their village which was at about 14 hours drive from the place where he used to live.His wife told his brothers that her husband has left a written statement(wasiyah) that he should be burried immediately at the same place where he will die. No one listened to her & later his written statement with his signatures was found in his papers. Has his brother & other relatives committed a sin? What should be done now? Is their any Sadaqat which has to be paid by the relatives on not following the Wasiyah (written statement) or what?.

Praise be to Allaah.  

This issue may be discussed from two angles: 

1 – The issue of acting upon the wishes of the deceased

2 – The ruling on moving the deceased from the land in which he died to another land. 

With regard to the first issue, it is obligatory to carry out the wishes of the deceased, whether he left a will describing something obligatory or something mustahabb. 

See al-Sharh al-Mumti’, 5/333 

With regard to the second issue: 

Shaykh Ibn Qudaamah said: 

The deceased should not be moved from his land to another land unless that is for a valid reason. This is the view of al-Awzaa’i and Ibn al-Mundhir…and because it is easier and it avoids any delay that may cause the corpse to start decaying before burial. But if there is a valid reason for doing so, then it is permissible. 

Al-Mughni, 2/193-194 

The Standing Committee said concerning this issue: 

The Sunnah at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the time of the Sahaabah was to bury the deceased in the graveyard of the land or city in which he died, and to bury the martyrs where they died. It is not proven in any hadeeth or report that any of the Sahaabah was moved to a place other than the graveyard of the land or city in which he died, or to another place nearby. 

Because of that, the majority of fuqaha’ said: it is not permissible to move the deceased before burial to a land other than the one in which he died, unless that is for a valid reason such as the fear that his grave may be violated if he is buried where he died, or that it may be mistreated, in which case he must be moved to a place where his grave will be safe. 

For example, moving him to his homeland so that his family will feel better and will be able to visit his grave is permissible. 

But in such cases that is subject to the condition that there is no fear that the corpse may start to decay because of the delay in burial, and that his sanctity will not be violated. If there is no need to move him and these conditions are not met, then it is not permissible to move him. 

The Committee believes that every deceased person should be buried in the graveyard of the city in which he dies, and that they should not be moved to another city unless that is for a valid reason, in accordance with the Sunnah and the practice of the salaf or early generations of this ummah, so as to avoid transgressing the rules of sharee’ah, to bury the deceased quickly as encouraged in sharee’ah, to protect the deceased from the procedures that may be done to his body to prevent decay, and to avoid the extravagance of spending large amounts of money unnecessarily and for which there is no legitimate shar’i need, as well as protecting the rights of the heirs and saving this money so that it may be spent in the proper ways.  

This is the fatwa signed by the Committee. May Allaah send blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon his family and companions. 

Fataawa Islamiyyah, 2/31, 32 

With regard to what the relatives of the deceased have done: 

If they went against the will and did not act in accordance with the wishes of the deceased after his wife told them because they were did not believe that she was telling the truth, then there is no sin on them, because they did not go against his wishes deliberately. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“And there is no sin on you concerning that in which you made a mistake, except in regard to what your hearts deliberately intend”

[al-Ahzaab 33:5] 

However, if they believed her but they did not care and they went against the will, then they are sinners who have transgressed against the rights of the deceased. 

With regard to their moving the deceased this distance, if there was no valid reason for doing so then this is a second transgression against the rights of the deceased, because part of honouring the deceased is to prepare him and bury him quickly, as the scholars have said. 

See al-Madkhil, 3/237, by Abu’l-Haaj al-Maaliki. 

So they have to repent and seek forgiveness, and regret what they have done, and make du’aa’ for the deceased, but they do not have to give anything in charity, but if they do so then that will be good, for charity is one of the means of forgiveness and expiation of sins. 

And Allaah knows best.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Ruling on breaking fast because of intense heat and to treat the injured

I work in civil defence. When it is Ramadaan, is it permissible for a person to break his fast if he feels intensely thirsty whilst treating the injured?

Praise be to Allaah. 

That is OK, but it is preferable not to break the fast, except in cases of necessity, and you should make up that day. But so long as a person is able to complete his fast, it is not permissible for him to break it. But if an accident happens far away, for example, and the sun is burning down in the summertime, and you go there to rescue the injured or put out a fire, and you feel thirsty and are afraid that your thirst will affect you adversely, then in sha Allaah it is OK to break your fast. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“So keep your duty to Allaah and fear Him as much as you can” [al-Taghaabun 64:16]

“Allaah burdens not a person beyond his scope” [al-Baqarah 2:286]

  And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

“If I command you  to do a thing, do as much of it as you can.” (Narrated by Muslim, no. 1337; al-Nasaa’i, 5/110).

  This applies so long as no travel is involved; if the matter involves travelling, then it is unconditionally permitted to break the fast. And Allaah knows best.

Is there any other way to compensate for missed fasts due to pregnancy and breastfeeding apart from fasting those days at a later time?

As-salamu Alaikum,
If a woman misses several years of fasting the month of Ramdan due to pregnancy and breastfeeding is she obligated to make these up by fasting each day? Is there another option that she may take such as feeding the poor because it would be very difficult for her to make up so many days? Some women are pregnant or breastfeeding for many years in a row without an opportunity to make them up. Also, does she need to make these up before she can do voluntary fasting such as during the month of Shawwal? If this is the case, then it may be difficult for her to gain the rewards of fasting during this month since she would need to make up the missed days first ? Is the opportunity to make up days lost after a certain time period ? For example, if the woman had not made them up before the next Ramadan is the opportunity lost ?
Jazak Allah Khair.

Praise be to Allaah.

A Muslim woman who misses any fasts in Ramadaan because of being pregnant or breastfeeding must make them up after she no longer has that excuse, just like the sick person of whom Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “… but if any of you is ill or on a journey, the same number (should be made up) from other days…” [al-Baqarah 2:184]

A woman may space out these days (i.e., she does not have to fast them all at once, consecutively), as this is easier for her. (See also "Seventy Questions About Fasting ",

, under the heading Books on this web-page).

It is better to make up missed days before the next Ramadaan comes, but if the excuse is still present, she may delay making them up until she is able to do so. She should not resort to feeding poor people (instead of fasting) unless she is totally unable to fast. And Allaah knows best.

Fasting of one who loses consciousness

I would like to find out if it is compulsory for a person to fast if he suffers from epilepsy.

Praise be to Allaah.  

Yes, the one who suffers from epilepsy has to fast in Ramadaan, and he is not exempted from fasting because of that. 

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked: 

A man loses consciousness for a few hours – does he have to fast? 

He answered: 

If he only lost consciousness for a few hours, then he has to fast, like the one who sleeps for a while. The fact that he loses consciousness for a few days during the day or during the night does not mean that he is not obliged to fast. 

Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 15/210. 

But if he is unconscious for the whole day (i.e., from dawn until sunset), then his fast is not valid and he has to make up that day. But if he wakes up during the day then his fast is valid. 

See also Question no. 9245, 12425.

A new Muslim wants to fast in secret

I have a friend (girl)who has embraced islam recently.The conversion matter needs to be kept confidential for sometime.she has expressed sincere desire to fast,but as she is living in a hostel she would find it extremely difficult to conceal her fasting from other friends.she is in a dillema.I REQUEST YOU TO SUGGEST AS TO WHAT SHE NEEDS TO DO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED ABOVE.

Praise be to Allaah.  

We congratulate our sister for entering Islam and we ask Allaah to make her steadfast in adhering to His religion and to cause her to die as a Muslim, and to keep her on the straight path. 

We advise our sister to avoid – as much as possible – places in which Allaah is disobeyed. We understand from the question that she is studying in a mixed place, and living in a mixed hostel. This involves sin and danger to her and to her religious commitment. Muslim sisters have to explain to her, in the best manner, the ruling on her situation and the dangers it poses to her, and advise her that she should leave if possible, and so long as that will not put her in an even worse situation. 

Secondly: 

It is not permissible for you to take girls as friends, or for her to take men as friends. Relationships between men and women are governed by Islamic sharee’ah, and sharee’ah does not give men and women the freedom to make friends with one another, because that opens the door to a great deal of evil. This is one of the traps of the Shaytaan by means of which he tricks people and makes them commit immoral actions such as shaking hands with them, being alone with them and things that are more serious than that. 

Thirdly: 

With regard to her fasting: she has to fast and it is not permissible for her not to fast. If she is among other students that is easier than if she was among her family and relatives. She can make the people think that she is not fasting by carrying a glass of juice – for example – and let them think that she is drinking it, or she can say that she is sick and mean thereby that she is sick at heart because of what people do, as Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) said: “I am sick” – or some other kind of permissible trick. 

She has to fear Allaah and obey Him as much as she can, and whoever fears and obeys Allaah, He will give him (or her) a way out. 

We ask Allaah to grant her strength. 

And Allaah knows best.

The discharge which is passed continuously by a woman does not have any effect on the fast

Please tell me if a transparent fluid like water is excreted which becomes white coloured after drying is our fast and prayer valid? is ghusl farz on us or not.please please tell me because i pass this thing alot and find it on my underwear and i do ghusl 2 or 3 times a day to make my fast and prayer valid.plz tell me whatis this and what should i do.

Praise be to Allaah.  

This kind of discharge is passed a great deal by women. It is taahir (pure) and not naajis (impure), and there is no need to do ghusl because of it. All it does is invalidate wudoo’. 

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about it and he replied: 

After researching the matter, it seems to me that the discharge that is passed by women, if it does not come from the bladder but rather from the womb, then it is taahir… 

This is the ruling on this discharge with regard to tahaarah (purity) – it is taahir and does not make the clothes or the body naajis. 

With regard to wudoo’, the ruling is that it invalidates wudoo’, unless it is continual, in which case it does not invalidate wudoo’, but the woman should not do wudoo’ for each prayer until after the time for the prayer has begun, and she has to use a pad. 

But if it starts and stops, and it usually stops at the time of prayer, then she should delay the prayer until the time when it stops, so long as there is no fear that the time for prayer will end. If she fears that she will miss the prayer, then she should do wudoo, use a pad and pray. It makes no difference if there is a little or a lot, because it is all coming from the front passage so a little or a lot invalidates wudoo’.                                                                                           

Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 11/284 

Using a pad means placing a piece of rag or cotton etc in the vagina so that less of this discharge will come out, and to prevent it getting on to the clothes or body. 

Based on this, there is no need to do ghusl because of this discharge, and it does not affect the fast. With regard to prayer, wudoo’ must be done for each prayer after the time for the prayer has begun, if the flow is continual. 

And Allaah knows best.