#Islam

The Fiqh Of Vaginal Discharge: Pure or Impure?

Published

January 13, 2025

I say to the Muslim woman who feels distressed due to these natural discharges: there is no cause for concern. In fact, the absence of such discharge is what might warrant concern and a visit to a physician.

If you notice any discharge coming out, assume it has exited from the external part of the private area, which is pure and does not invalidate ablution according to the majority of scholars. Do not trouble yourself searching for its source.

If you are certain it has exited from the internal area or the vaginal canal itself, it is still considered pure by the majority opinion.

Keep supporting MuslimMatters for the sake of Allah

Alhamdulillah, we're at over 850 supporters. Help us get to 900 supporters this month. All it takes is a small gift from a reader like you to keep us going, for just $2 / month.

The Prophet (SAW) has taught us the best of deeds are those that done consistently, even if they are small. Click here to support MuslimMatters with a monthly donation of $2 per month. Set it and collect blessings from Allah (swt) for the khayr you're supporting without thinking about it.

As for whether it invalidates ablution, if this discharge occurs for most or even half of the time, it does not invalidate ablution according to the Mālikīs; if it occurs for less than half of the time, it does not invalidate ablution according to some of them.

If your discharges are not frequent enough to qualify as ongoing invalidators of ritual purity, you may follow the opinion of the esteemed imam, Ibn Ḥazm, which has been preferred by several verifying contemporary scholars, that it does not invalidate ablution in any case.

Is Vaginal Discharge Pure or Impure?

Vaginal discharge, also called leukorrhea, is made up of both fluid and cells. The vagina sheds discharge throughout the day. Typical discharge helps keep the vagina healthy and clean. By keeping the tissues wet, it protects against infection and irritation. Vaginal discharge might seem different at times. It could be whitish and sticky or clear and watery. These changes usually depend on where you are in your period cycle. It’s common for the amount, color, and consistency all to change.¹

From this definition, it is clear that this discharge is a natural, continuous secretion that fluctuates but does not cease. It is not something unique to women of our time, as some might assume.

The reason for addressing this topic is the frequency with which women ask about it and the discomfort felt by those who are pious, as the prevailing view among people is that scholars differ on the impurity of this discharge, with the majority opinion being that it invalidates ablution. Furthermore, since the exiting of this discharge (not merely its secretion) does not persist for the majority of the day, treating it as incontinence (salas) is also not feasible for most women.

This discussion includes:

Natural (physiological) discharge versus pathological (disease-related) discharge.
Differentiation between discharge that exits and that which remains inside.
Distinguishing between discharge from the external, washable part of the vulva and the internal vagina.
The ruling on continuous discharge.
Discussion on its purity or impurity.
Discussion on whether it invalidates ablution or not.

1. Natural vs. Pathological Discharge

In some cases, discharge may increase due to a medical condition, and its color may change. What is commonly referred to as brownish or yellowish discharge, if not connected to menstruation, could fall under this category. However, this discussion focuses specifically on natural, not pathological, discharge.

2. Differentiation Between Discharge That Exits and That Which Remains

Inside our current discussion concerns discharge that exits from the vagina. As for internal discharge, it carries no legal ruling even if considered impure, as it does not necessitate any specific action.

3. Differentiation Between Discharge From the Washable Outer Area of the Vulva and the Inner Vagina

This is also an important distinction and may relieve many women of undue concern. The vulva has an outer part that is washed. The outer discharge, being similar to sweat, is generally not subject to the same rulings as the inner discharge. According to the Shafi’i scholars who consider internal vaginal moisture impure, they state:

“(Vaginal moisture) refers to a whitish fluid between pre-ejaculate and sweat that exits from the internal, unwashed part of the vagina, unlike discharge that exits from the washed area, which is definitively pure.”²

They also add:
“Note that vaginal moisture falls into three categories: definitively pure, which is the discharge that exits from the part that shows when a woman sits on her feet; generally considered pure, which is the discharge that reaches the area where intercourse occurs; and impure, which is beyond this.”³

If a woman is uncertain about the origin of the discharge, it is assumed to be from the nearest area. Her previous state of purity remains certain unless definitively negated, and thus, she is not required to do anything.

The Jordanian Fatwa Department states: “If it exits from the external part of the vulva or if the woman cannot determine its origin, it is considered pure and does not invalidate ablution.”⁴

4. Ruling on Continuous Invalidators of Ritual Purity

If these secretions are continuous, they are generally treated as incontinence (salas) by most scholars who hold that they invalidate ablution. According to the Maliki school, if the discharge occurs for most of the time or half of it, it does not invalidate ablution. If it occurs for less than that, it also does not invalidate ablution according to their Iraqi scholars.

In Manḥ al-Jalīl, it states: “Ablution is invalidated by incontinence (salas)—whether from urine, pre-ejaculate, semen, post-urinary fluid, feces, gas, or non-menstrual blood—if it exits involuntarily and persists for less than half the time. If it lasts for the whole period, the majority of the time, or half of it, then it does not invalidate ablution, which is the standard Maliki opinion held by scholars in the Maghreb, while Iraqi Malikis hold that it does not invalidate at all. Performing ablution in such cases is recommended if it does not persist for the entire duration.”⁵

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah supported this view in his later opinions, issuing fatwas that “persistent invalidators, such as prolonged bleeding and urinary incontinence, do not invalidate ablution.”⁶

5. Ruling on Purity and Impurity of Vaginal Discharge

According to the Hanafi and Hanbali schools, as well as one opinion in the Shafi’i school (which al-Nawawi endorsed), and the Ẓāhirī school, this discharge is considered pure (ṭāhir). In contrast, it is considered impure (najis) in the Maliki and Shafi’i schools and according to one opinion within the Hanbali school.

The strongest evidence for those who consider it impure is found in Ṣaḥīḥayn, where Zayd ibn Khālid asked ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān: “What do you say about a man who has intercourse with his wife but does not ejaculate?” ʿUthmān replied: “He should perform ablution as he does for prayer and wash his private part.” ʿUthmān said: “I heard this from the Messenger of Allah .” They said, “The two hadiths allowing prayer with ablution alone, without a full ritual bath (ghusl), are abrogated, as previously mentioned in the chapter on what necessitates ghusl. However, the instruction to wash the private part and anything it comes into contact with remains unchanged, which clearly indicates the ruling of impurity regarding vaginal discharge.”⁷

They also compared it to other excretions from the private parts, concluding that impurity is the default for anything that exits from these areas, with the exception of semen, which is considered pure by some due to specific evidence.

Some said, “The vaginal moisture of a woman is impure due to its mixture with urine and other impurities.”⁸

Some said, “It is impure because it is a vaginal discharge that does not produce offspring, akin to pre-ejaculate.”⁹

Some said, “It is impure as it originates from an area of impurity.”¹⁰

Those who consider the discharge pure base their opinion on several arguments:

The default state is purity; impurity requires clear evidence, and what is not explicitly addressed is within the scope of leniency.
They cite a hadith in Ṣaḥīḥayn in which ʿĀʾishah would scrape semen off the Prophet’s clothing before he prayed in it. They argue that “this semen was a result of intercourse (not nocturnal emission, since prophets do not experience it), which would involve contact with vaginal discharge.”¹¹ If the discharge were impure, then both the semen and the woman’s discharge would have been considered impure. Kashf al-Qināʿ states: “Similarly, the vaginal moisture of a woman is pure, as proven by the purity of her semen. If vaginal moisture were ruled impure, then her semen would also be impure.”¹²
They said, “‘(The vaginal discharge) from the area where intercourse occurs is pure, like sweat, saliva, mucus, and phlegm, even if it has a bluish tinge, as well as anything that flows from the mouth during sleep.’”¹³ This comparison to the pure mucus and phlegm is precise. The Majmūʿ mentions: “Some of our scholars hold that it is pure, just like the other bodily fluids.”¹⁴
They note that both newborn infants and eggs are considered pure, despite coming into contact with vaginal moisture.¹⁵
Fifth: In Ṣaḥīḥayn, it is reported that ʿUmar asked the Messenger of Allah , “Can one of us sleep while in a state of major ritual impurity?” The Prophet replied, “Yes, let him, if he wishes, perform ablution, then sleep, until he takes a bath.” The washing of the private part is not mentioned here, and delaying clarification at the time of need is not permissible. If someone argues that avoiding impurity is not required until prayer is due—meaning, if he neglects to wash the private part, it would soil his clothes and bedding—the ablution itself mentioned in the hadith is understood as recommended by the majority of scholars, except for the Ẓāhirīs. As for their argument regarding the obligation to wash the private part based on cases of intercourse without ejaculation (الإكسال ), which was later abrogated, they argue that this specific part of the ruling remains intact. However, this is countered by the fact that after the obligation of a full bath was established, there was no command to hasten to wash anything, including the private part. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم washing it from his body does not establish an obligation, nor does his command to wash it for someone who has ejaculated establish the impurity of vaginal moisture. The necessity for washing may apply regardless of purity or impurity, and it could be argued that what one encounters during intercourse is not exclusively vaginal discharge, but may also include pre-ejaculate released due to arousal.
The view that considers it impure places a significant burden and hardship on all women, a difficulty that is not in line with the principles of ease in Islamic law.

In response to the evidence provided by those who argue for impurity, it can be said:

[PC: Patti Black (unsplash)]

The analogy to pre-ejaculate is weak, as pre-ejaculate is associated with sexual arousal, making it an unreliable comparison for ruling on purity.

Those who argue that it is impure because it originates in an impure area are countered by the fact that semen and offspring are not considered impure, and in general, internal bodily fluids are presumed pure, as is the case with phlegm. The womb is not typically regarded as an impure area, even though it may discharge menstrual blood. As Ibn Nujaym noted: “Air exiting from the penis or vagina does not invalidate ablution, as it results from internal movement rather than air exiting from the usual impurity-bearing area. Even if we concede that it is air, it does not come from an area of impurity.”¹⁶

As for their analogy and assumption that impurity is the default for anything exiting from the two passages, it is contradicted by the example of semen, and by pebbles exiting from either passage, which are agreed upon to be inherently pure, even if they may become impure by contact with surrounding impurities. This applies when they exit from the urinary or excretory passages, not from the birth canal (vagina).

As for their claim that “vaginal discharge is impure due to mixing with urine and other impurities,”¹⁷ This reasoning is flawed, as the vaginal passage is a third pathway, and the urinary opening is separate from the vagina and its opening.

6. Discussion on Whether Vaginal Discharge Invalidates Ablution

The vast majority of scholars hold that vaginal discharge invalidates ablution, regardless of whether it is considered pure or impure. The only dissenting opinion among the major scholars was from Imam Ibn Ḥazm. However, before attempting to support his view, it should be noted that, as far as I know, there is no traceable evidence from any Companion, successor, or any of the four imams to explicitly state that vaginal discharge invalidates ablution. Rather, what has been transmitted from some of the imams are statements regarding its purity or impurity, and from some general statements that could reasonably allow for deriving the position of invalidation from them.

The term “majority of scholars” here refers to later scholars who discussed this issue, though their discussions are also very limited. Therefore, it is unwise for anyone to claim consensus on this matter. If someone were to claim that they do not know of any early dissenters aside from Ibn Ḥazm, this would be more understandable.

While opposing the four schools is indeed a serious matter, if the opinion that vaginal discharge does not invalidate ablution were in opposition to the four schools, as will be discussed here, it is important to note that this view has precedent from a verifying and a most resourceful imam. Additionally, several contemporary scholars have examined his argument and applied it within their own legal schools, so there is no harm in adopting and advocating this view, even if it diverges from one’s own school.

The stronger view is that vaginal discharge does not invalidate ablution, based on the following points:

The default ruling is that one’s ablution remains valid until evidence proves otherwise. Ibn Ḥazm stated: “Our basis for not requiring ablution in all these cases is that there is no evidence from the Qur’an, Sunnah, or consensus obligating it, and Allah did not legislate it upon any human or jinn except through one of these sources.”¹⁸
This discharge is something that commonly affects women, and therefore, would have been more deserving of a clear ruling from the Messenger of Allah than istihāḍah (irregular bleeding). However, no specific ruling has come for it, so it remains under the category of excused matters. It is also inaccurate, according to anyone knowledgeable in medicine, to claim that this is a rare occurrence or that it only affects women of modern times. These secretions are akin to mucus or tears, and the vagina has a physiologic need for them, just as the airways require mucus.
We accept the principle of analogical reasoning (qiyās) as valid evidence (contrary to Imam Ibn Ḥazm). However, it would be challenging to find an appropriate analogy. Imām al-Qarāfī stated: “… analogical reasoning in ritual matters is invalid due to the absence of a shared comprehensible effective cause.”¹⁹Ibn Ḥazm also stated: “There are varied rulings for what exits from the two passages. Some require ghusl (ritual bath), such as menstrual blood, semen, and post-natal bleeding. Others require only ablution, such as urine, feces, flatulence, and pre-ejaculate, and some do not require anything, such as white post-menstrual discharge. So from where would you draw an analogy, selectively requiring ablution for some but not others based on arbitrary comparisons?” ²⁰Imām Mālik did not consider unusual discharges similar to urine or feces, so he did not view them as invalidating ablution, as the rulings of purity and impurity for him are based on direct evidence, not extended through analogy. A restrained approach to analogical reasoning (qiyās) is a core principle in our Ḥanbalī school in general.
And, to what should vaginal discharge be compared? To excrement and urine? But there is no strong similarity between these and vaginal discharge, which is a natural, continuous occurrence for women and is considered pure by most scholars. As for making an analogy to flatulence, which is pure yet exits from the anus and invalidates ablution, this ruling is based on explicit scriptural evidence. It would be more fitting to compare vaginal discharge to air exiting from the front rather than from the anus, which the Ḥanafī and Mālikī schools do not consider to invalidate ablution.If vaginal discharge were compared to pebbles or worms exiting from either passage, which invalidate ablution according to the majority (except the Mālikīs and Ẓāhirīs), the response would be that those who adhere to the original case on which analogy is based are not required to accept the analogy. There is disagreement regarding the impurity of worms, and both pebbles and worms become impure by what surrounds them as they exit through the urinary and excretory passages. This is not the case with vaginal discharge, which, by the Creator of all things, follows a third, distinct path.
If the analogy to impurities exiting from the two passages is invalid due to its lack of impurity according to the majority, then it should be noted that the Prophet did not say that everything exiting from the two passages invalidates ablution. This is a view specific to the Shāfiʿī and Ḥanbalī schools, and Allah has not bound us to legal regulators (ḍawābiṭ fiqhiyyah) unless supported by evidence. Furthermore, while the female genitalia may be regarded as a single passage, this is incorrect, as the vaginal opening is a third, distinct passage.
From general principles, the rule “what is left unaddressed is excused” and the principle “hardship begets ease,” alongside the prevalence of such occurrences and the difficulty in avoiding them, all support that requiring ablution for this discharge would place an undue burden on women. In a fatwā, the eminent scholar Muṣṭafā al-Zarqā commented: “If we say this discharge invalidates ablution, it would mean that a woman’s ablution would never last! This is far from the ease and accommodation that characterizes our Sharīʿah.”

Now we turn to examine the claim of consensus among the four madhāhib on the invalidation of ablution due to vaginal discharge. Here, we do not claim to be presenting the established position within these madhâhib, as it would be too bold to assert non-invalidation within schools like the Shāfiʿī and Ḥanbalī traditions, which hold that anything exiting from the private parts invalidates ablution; rather, our goal is to demonstrate the possibility of deriving a ruling of non-invalidation based on the principles of some of them.

First: The Ḥanafī Position:

I begin by stating that the deriving the ruling of non-invalidation of ablution due to vaginal discharge from the Ḥanafī principles is what is confirmed by the late eminent scholar Shaykh Muṣṭafā al-Zarqāʾ (may Allah have mercy on him). Before allowing the meticulous scholar to present his argument, it is important to note that in the Ḥanafī school, the cause for ablution invalidation is impurity. In al-Baḥr al-Rāʾiq it is stated:
“The cause for invalidation is impurity, conditioned by exiting, and this is affirmed by the apparent meaning of the hadith: ‘What breaks the purity?’ He replied, ‘That which exits from the two passages.’ Thus, the cause is impurity, and its exit is the secondary cause. Attributing the ruling to the primary cause is preferable to attributing it to the secondary cause.”²¹

Imām Ibn Nujaym further clarifies this point: “… In al-Badāʾiʿ, it is explained that worms invalidate ablution due to their impurity, as they originate from impurity. Al-Isbijābī mentions two approaches regarding this: one is what we stated, and the other is that the impurity is what adheres to it, which al-Zaylaʿī favored. This explanation applies to pebbles for certain and does not contradict the ruling of air exiting from the urethra or vaginal opening, which, according to the sound opinion, does not invalidate ablution because such occurrence results from muscle contraction, not actual air exiting. And even if it were actual air, it is not expelled from an impure area, and thus the air does not invalidate ablution.”²²

Once this is understood, the meaning of Shaykh al-Zarqāʾ’s words becomes clear:
“I have often been asked about this issue in the past, and I used to explain verbally to both men and women that this viscous discharge, which exits a woman under normal circumstances (not in cases of illness) and is referred to as ṭuhr by people, is not impure according to Sharia and does not invalidate a woman’s ablution, as the jurists have explained. Some questioners are surprised by this answer because they imagine otherwise, so I reassure them… It is as if anything that offers ease, tolerance, or removal of difficulty in the context of natural life is viewed by some as strange, as though the meaning of Shariah is only fulfilled through hardship and difficulty. Yet this noble, graceful Shariah is fundamentally based on ease and alleviating hardship.

Recently, I received a written question from someone who was not satisfied with my answer and demanded textual evidence! For this reason, I am now presenting the following references as an answer to this question:

In al-Durr al-Mukhtār, under the section on ablution invalidators, it states, ‘Ablution is invalidated by the exit of any impure substance.’ In the section on ritual bathing, on page 112 of the first Bulaqiyah edition, it says, ‘It will be discussed later that vaginal discharge is pure according to him,’ meaning Imām Abū Ḥanīfa (may Allah be pleased with him), as opposed to his two companions. Ibn ʿĀbidīn explains in the commentary here that the point of disagreement between Abū Ḥanīfa and his two companions concerns the discharge that comes from the inner vagina that does not require washing when in a state of janābah (major ritual impurity). As for external discharge, it is agreed upon as being pure, like the moisture in the mouth, nose, and sweat.”²³

The Mālikī Position:

Shaykh Muḥammad al-Ḥasan al-Daddu has ruled that the correct opinion regarding vaginal discharge is that it does not invalidate ablution. In his fatwa, he states: “It does not invalidate ablution, and if a woman experiences arousal during intimate caressing, the preferred opinion is that this does not invalidate her ablution at all unless she feels ejaculation. If she feels it, then ghusl (full ritual bath) is required, and ablution alone would not suffice. However, if she does not feel ejaculation, the mere vaginal moisture is comparable to other bodily fluids within the body, and its ruling is akin to other internal bodily fluids according to the most accurate opinion.”²⁴

Although he did not provide an explicit derivation of this ruling according to the Mālikī school or otherwise in his brief fatwa, this noble school is the most aligned with this view. Imām Mālik (may Allah have mercy on him) did not draw analogies from uncommon bodily discharge to feces and urine; thus, such discharges do not invalidate ablution, as the ruling on purity and impurity for him is ritualistic (taʿabbudī) and is not subject to broad analogical reasoning. Additionally, ongoing discharges, according to Mālikī jurisprudence, do not invalidate ablution.

However, the Mālikīs do hold vaginal discharge to be impure. Could this stance, at least for some scholars, be due to a misunderstanding of the reality of these discharges? Their reasoning that “vaginal moisture is impure due to its mixture with urine and other impurities”²⁵ is not a valid argument, since the urinary tract is distinct from the genital tract.

Similarly, al-Zād mentions:
“Ablution is invalidated by anything exiting from a passage.”²⁶

This is a stronger statement as it specifies all passages, though the intent was likely not to imply three distinct passages. Both schools generally mention two passages. An even stronger indication of this in our Ḥanbalī school can be found in Masāʾil al-Imām Aḥmad, as narrated by his son Abū al-Faḍl Ṣāliḥ: “He was asked about a woman from whom air exits vaginally, to which he replied: ‘Anything that exits from the two passages requires ablution.’”²⁷

I will not attempt to derive a ruling of non-invalidation of ablution within these two noble schools here, yet mujtahid jurists within these schools may consider doing so, given the current understanding of anatomical and functional differences between the vaginal canal (birth passage) and the urinary and excretory passages. It is possible to uphold the principle of invalidation for all exiting substances while excluding the birth passage.

Legal maxims and principles in jurisprudence generally accommodate exceptions readily, and many scholars consider them predominant principles, not universal. Sound legal theory holds that they are universal yet open to exception, not out of whim but in the presence of a strong counterargument, and the distinctions between vaginal discharge and other substances exiting the urinary and excretory passages are numerous and significant.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I say to the Muslim woman who feels discomfort due to these natural discharges: there is no cause for concern. In fact, the absence of such discharges is what might warrant concern and a visit to a physician. If you notice any discharge, assume it has exited from the external part of the private area, which is pure and does not invalidate ablution according to the majority of scholars. Do not trouble yourself searching for its source.

If you are certain it has exited from the internal area or the vaginal canal, it is still considered pure by the majority opinion. If this discharge occurs for most or even half of the time, it does not invalidate ablution according to the Mālikīs; if it occurs for less than half of the time, it does not invalidate ablution according to the Iraqis among them. If your discharges are not frequent enough to qualify as continuous invalidators, you may follow the opinion of the esteemed imam Ibn Ḥazm, which has been preferred by some contemporary scholars, that it does not invalidate ablution in any case.

And may blessings be upon Muhammad , and all praise is due to Allah , Lord of all the worlds.

Related:

Quandary of Female Vaginal Discharge: Pure or Impure?

0 Shares

Keep supporting MuslimMatters for the sake of Allah

Alhamdulillah, we're at over 850 supporters. Help us get to 900 supporters this month. All it takes is a small gift from a reader like you to keep us going, for just $2 / month.

Up Next

Study Classical Texts the Traditional Way | Session 14

Don't Miss

The Elon Musk Anti-Islam Crusade

Dr. Hatem El Haj

Dr. Hatem Al-Haj has a PhD in Comparative Fiqh from al-Jinan University. He is a pediatrician, former Dean of the College of Islamic Studies at Mishkah University, and a member of the permanent Fatwa Committee of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA).