The correct view, God willing, is that if labor pains seize her, it is considered a dangerous state, for it is a severe pain from which destruction is feared, so she is like someone suffering from other dangerous illnesses. As for before that, there is no pain, and the possibility of its occurrence is contrary to the norm; thus, the ruling is not established based on its remote possibility when it is absent, just like a healthy person. As for after the birth, if the placenta remains with her, it is a dangerous state, and if the child dies along with it, it is a dangerous state, because its expulsion is difficult. If she delivers the child, the placenta comes out, and there occurs a swelling or severe throbbing, it is a dangerous state. If none of that occurs, it has been narrated from Ahmad regarding a woman in post-partum bleeding: if she sees blood, her donation is from the third of her estate. It is possible that by this he intended that if it is accompanied by pain, due to its association with that in most cases. It is also possible to take it at its literal meaning, for if she sees blood, she is like a sick person, and her ruling after a miscarriage is like her ruling after a full-term delivery. If she miscarries a lump of flesh or a clot, it has no legal ruling, unless there is a disease or pain there. All of this is the school of al-Shafi'i, except that for him, mere blood is not considered a dangerous state.

Section: Fear is established by factors other than what we have mentioned, in five situations that take the place of illness. First, when battle is joined and the two parties are intermingled for combat, and each party is equal to the other or being overwhelmed. As for the dominant party after its victory, it is not in a state of fear. Similarly, if they are not intermingled, but each of them is distinct, whether there is archery between them or not, it is not a state of fear. There is no difference between whether the two parties are in agreement regarding religion or are divided. Malik, al-Awza'i, and al-Thawri held this view, and something similar is reported from Makhul. There are two opinions from al-Shafi'i; one of them is like the opinion of the group, and the second is that it is not a dangerous state because he is not ill. Our evidence is that the expectation of destruction here is like the expectation of illness or even greater, so it must be annexed to it; and because illness is only considered a dangerous state due to the sufferer's fear of destruction, and this is the same. Ahmad said: