What are the proofs of the jurists who hold the view that it is obligatory for a woman who has become pure from menstruation in the afternoon to pray Dhuhr and Asr, and for a woman who has become pure before dawn to pray Maghrib and Isha, and what are the proofs of those who disagree with them, in order to determine the stronger opinion?

Scholars have differed concerning the menstruating woman, or anyone in a similar state, if their excuse (for not praying) ceases after Asr or Isha'. The majority of scholars — including Malik, Shafi'i, and Ahmad — are of the opinion that she must perform the Dhuhr and Asr prayers together, or the Maghrib and Isha' prayers together. As for Abu Hanifa and those who agreed with him, they said that she is only required to perform the prayer whose time coincided with the cessation of her excuse, arguing that the time for the first prayer had already passed while the excuse was present.

The majority of scholars argued that the time for Dhuhr and Asr is, in general, one and the same, which is why they are combined. They also cited the fatwa of Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf and Ibn Abbas, which obliges the menstruating woman to make up both prayers if she becomes pure before sunset or before dawn.

As for the Malikis, they stipulate for making up both prayers that the woman must have enough time to perform the first prayer, plus one rakah, along with the time of purification. In contrast, the Shafi'is and Hanbalis believe that it is sufficient to have enough time for the takbirat al-ihram (the opening Allahu Akbar).

It is considered that the evidence presented by the majority of scholars is stronger and more safeguarding of one's religious obligation.