Islamic Fiqh > Marriage and family > Breastfeeding and its legal effects (rada'a) > Animal milk and the case of the khuntha, then the condition that the wet nurse be an adult
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full chapter: See all parts.
This passage from the Encyclopedia of Islamic jurisprudence (al-Mawsua al-fiqhiyya) deals with the conditions of the breastfeeding that establishes the matrimonial prohibition: conditions relating to the wet nurse (being human, being adult, being alive), to the milk itself, to the nursling and to the duration of breastfeeding, and then to the required number of sucklings. It finally sets out the two means of proof of breastfeeding before the judge: acknowledgment and testimony. The positions of the four schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali) are reported with their classical references.
The prohibition is not established by the milk of an animal: if two children have drunk the milk of a sheep, no prohibition of suckling is established between them, because the prohibition comes from the religious Law, and the Law has come only regarding the milk of a human woman. The animal is below the human woman in prohibition, and its milk is below the milk of the human woman in benefiting the body; it is therefore not assimilated to it in the prohibition. And brotherhood (through suckling) is a consequence of motherhood: if this suckling does not establish motherhood, it is all the more fitting that it does not establish brotherhood (al-Jawhara an-Nira, 4/384; at-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/220-221; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiyya of al-Dasuqi, 3/467-468; al-Muhadhdhab, 2/157; al-Bayan, 11/156; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/131; al-Kafi, 3/345).
The same applies to the milk of a khuntha (hermaphrodite person) whose sex remains ambiguous, according to the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis: since it is not known that she is a woman, the prohibition is not established on the basis of doubt, as long as her femininity has not appeared, even after the nursing, through the evidence of her anatomy. If her femininity becomes clear, the prohibition is established; otherwise it is not (al-Muhadhdhab, 2/157; al-Bayan, 11/156; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/131; al-Kafi, 3/345; al-Insaf, 9/333).
The Malikis say: the milk of the ambiguous khuntha establishes the prohibition by analogy with the one who is certain of the purity of his water and doubts its ritual impurity, whose prohibition is established (the hashiyya of al-Dasuqi on al-Sharh al-Kabir, 3/467-468; al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 2/55; the hashiyya of al-Sawi on al-Sharh al-Saghir, 6/117).
Secondly: that she be an adult. The jurists agree that if the woman is an adult and milk flows from her, that milk establishes the prohibition. They differ, however, concerning the minor girl in whom milk appears: does the prohibition apply or not?
The Hanafis, the Malikis in one opinion, and the Shafi'is and Hanbalis hold that the prohibition is not established by the milk of the minor as long as she has not reached nine lunar years, even if she has not been formally judged to have reached that age. If milk flows from a little girl under nine years and she nurses a child, no prohibition attaches to that nursing. The prohibition attaches only to the milk of a girl of nine years and more (al-Jawhara an-Nira, 4/383-384; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/200; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/131; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 10/110-111; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 9/196).
The Maliki madhhab holds that the little girl who cannot bear intercourse, if she nurses a child, is considered his mother (in prohibition), and no account is taken of who the wet nurse is: a little girl or a menopausal woman. According to another opinion, if milk appears in the little girl who cannot bear intercourse and a child suckles her, no prohibition results (at-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/220; Mawahib al-Jalil, 5/424; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/176-177; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiyya of al-Dasuqi, 3/467-468).
Thirdly: that pregnancy precedes suckling (the milk of the virgin). The Hanbalis stipulate in the madhhab that pregnancy must precede suckling: if milk returns to a woman without prior pregnancy, it does not establish the prohibition. Imam Ahmad explicitly stated this regarding the virgin's milk, because it is rare and custom does not use it to feed children (al-Majmu', 8/164; al-Insaf, 9/331; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/521; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 5/630; Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 5/598).
The majority of jurists, Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis in one opinion, hold that it is not a condition that pregnancy precede: if milk flows from a virgin and she nurses a child, the prohibition attaches to it, by virtue of the generality of the text, namely the word of Allah:
"... your mothers who breastfed you ..."
Surah An-Nisa, 23
And because it is the milk of a woman: the prohibition attaches to it as if she had had intercourse. And because the milks of women are created to feed children: even if this case is rare, its kind is customary (al-Jawhara an-Nira, 4/383; Mukhtasar al-Wiqaya, 1/383; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 2/185; al-Lubab, 2/67; al-Mudawwana al-Kubra, 5/410; at-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/220; Mawahib al-Jalil, 5/424; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/176-177; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiyya of al-Dasuqi, 3/467-468; al-Muhadhdhab, 2/157; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/200; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/131; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 10/110-111; al-Mughni, 8/144; al-Kafi, 3/345).
Fourthly: that the woman be alive (the prohibition by the milk of the dead woman). The jurists agree that if a woman's milk was milked during her lifetime into a vessel, then she dies and the child is fed with that milk after her death, the prohibition is established: the meaning that renders unlawful is realized by this milk, and her action in the nursing is not taken into account. Consider: if she were asleep and the child suckled her breast, the prohibition would be established. Likewise hired feeding: if the contract took place during her lifetime, the prohibition is established; the same applies after her death.
Imam al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: there is no disagreement that if her milk was milked into a vessel during her lifetime, then the child was fed with it after her death, the prohibition is established (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 4/8).
And Imam Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if a woman milks her milk into a vessel then dies, and a child drinks it, the prohibition is established according to everyone who makes hired feeding (wajur) a factor of prohibition, and this is the view of Abu Thawr, al-Shafi'i and the partisans of personal opinion (ashab al-ra'y), among others. For this milk is the milk of a woman during her lifetime, so that it resembles the case had he drunk it while she was alive (al-Mughni, 8/141).
The jurists differ, however, over the case of the child who suckles a dead woman directly, or whose milk was taken while she was dead and he drank it being fed into his mouth: does the prohibition apply or not?
The Shafi'is and some Hanbalis hold that the wet nurse must be stably alive: if the infant suckles the milk of the dead woman, the milk that flows from her breast after her death, the prohibition is not established. They rely on the word of the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The unlawful does not render unlawful the lawful"; this milk is unlawful because of its intrinsic impurity, and what was lawful before does not become unlawful through it.
Moreover, that upon which the prohibition of marriage attaches does not exist after death, as with marriage itself. And suckling established the prohibition of affinity in the likeness of intercourse accompanied by doubt: since death prevents the establishment of the prohibition through intercourse (had the man had intercourse with the dead woman believing her alive, no prohibition would have resulted), the same applies to the suckling of the dead woman's milk.
This rule is stated as follows: that by which the prohibition was established in connection with her life loses its prohibition in connection with her death, like intercourse. The prohibition of suckling is connected to the separation of the milk from the mother's breast and its arrival in the child's stomach: since the arrival of the milk in the child after her death is an obstacle, its separation after the mother's death must prevent the establishment of the prohibition. It is likewise one of the two aspects of the prohibition, so that death must prevent its establishment, as with the child.
And because death lifted the prohibition of intercourse with her, it must lift the prohibition of her milk, as in the case of fornication: suckling is comparable to tortious damage (jina) regarding the resulting liability to indemnity, and the rule of indemnity is not established for a dead person, whereas it is established for the sleeper and the insane. Consider: a dead man who fell upon a man and killed him would not be liable; a sleeper or an insane person who fell would be liable. The well-digger is likewise not concerned if damage occurs to the well after his death, because the digging took place during his lifetime: the rule of damage having ceased with death, the rule of indemnity ceases with it.
And because the milk of suckling makes the flesh grow and strengthens the bone: it is for this meaning that the suckling of the adult is not established. But the dead woman's milk is a disease that does not make the flesh grow nor the bone strengthen; the prohibition is therefore not established through it (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 11/376-377; al-Muhadhdhab, 2/157; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/131; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 10/110; al-Mughni, 8/140-141).
The majority of jurists, Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis, hold on the contrary that the milk of the dead woman equals that of the living: if the child suckles her breast, or the milk is milked from it after her death and given to the child, the prohibition is established, by virtue of the generality of the word of the Prophet: "What is unlawful by descent is unlawful by suckling."
And were one to admit the prohibition of her milk through death, being unlawful does not exclude its being nourishing: consider that the flesh of the dead animal is nourishing; the same applies to her milk. There is moreover no difference between drinking it during her life and after her death, except life and death, or impurity, and the latter has no effect: milk does not die and impurity does not prevent, as if one had milked into an impure vessel. And had the milk been milked during her lifetime and drunk after her death, the prohibition would be established; its remaining in her breast therefore does not prevent the establishment of the prohibition, for her breast is no more than a vessel in the absence of life, and she herself is no more than the bone of the dead animal in establishing impurity (al-Mabsut, 5/139; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 4/8; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 3/245; al-Jawhara an-Nira, 4/382; al-Lubab, 2/66; at-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/220; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/176; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiyya of al-Dasuqi, 3/467; al-Mughni, 8/140-141; al-Kafi, 3/345; Sharh al-Zarkashi, 2/553; al-Majmu', 8/169; al-Insaf, 9/336; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/523).
Imam Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) said: as for the qualities of the wet nurse, they agree that the milk of every woman, pubescent or not, menopausal or menstruating, whether she had a husband or not, pregnant or not, establishes the prohibition. Some differed in making the milk of a man prohibitive: that does not exist, still less would it have a legal status; were it to exist, it would be milk only by the sharing of the name. And they differed, in this chapter, concerning the milk of the dead woman. The cause of the disagreement: does the general text encompass it or not? The milk of the dead woman, if it exists, is milk only by the sharing of the name, and the question borders on practical non-existence: it has being only in discourse (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 2/30).
Second pillar: the milk. The jurists stipulate, for the milk that establishes the prohibition, that it reach the child's stomach, with no difference between its arrival through sucking at the breast, by feeding from a vessel (bottle) or by instillation through the nose. If a woman has milked her milk into a flask, the prohibition is established by feeding a child with that milk even without sucking: there is no difference between sucking, pouring, instillation (sa'ut) and feeding from a vessel, and none of this is disputed among the four schools (al-Jawhara an-Nira, 4/380-381; al-Lubab, 2/65; at-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/221; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/176; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiyya of al-Dasuqi, 3/468; Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/390; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/201-202; Kanz al-Raghibin, 4/156; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/132-133; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 10/111-112; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 5/633; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/523).
They differ, however, over the following points. Firstly: if the milk is mixed with a liquid. The majority of jurists, Hanafis, Malikis in the madhhab, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, establish that if a woman's milk is mixed with water or another liquid, pure or impure, and the milk dominates (so that its taste, color or smell is perceived), the prohibition attaches to it; if it is equal, as the Malikis say, the prohibition also occurs.
If the water or the liquid dominates (no taste, color or smell of milk), the prohibition does not attach according to the majority: Hanafis, Malikis in the madhhab and Hanbalis.
Mutarrif, Ashhab, 'Abd al-Malik and al-Lakhmi say: the prohibition is established even if the milk is dominated (Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 3/390).
The Shafi'is say: if the milk is dominated to the point that its three qualities disappear, sensibly and by estimation, and the infant drinks all of it, the prohibition is established. If he drinks only part of it, the prohibition is established according to the most apparent view (azhar): on condition that the milk reached the stomach, verified by the fact that what remains is less than the amount of milk, and that the milk is of an amount which, if isolated, would have had an effect, namely an amount from which five draughts could be given if the milk were separated from the mixture.
In opposition to the most apparent view: if he drinks only part of it, there is no prohibition, because the arrival of all the milk is not verified (al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/201-202; Kanz al-Raghibin, 4/156; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/132-133; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 10/111-112). This is a Hanbali opinion.
Imam Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: an issue: "mixed milk equals pure milk". The mixed (mashub) is that which is mixed with something else, and the pure (mahd) is the whole milk touched by nothing else. Al-Khiraqi put them on the same level, whether mixed with food, drink or anything else, and al-Shafi'i said likewise. Abu Bakr al-Khiraqi said: the analogy of Ahmad's saying is that it does not prohibit, because it is feeding from a vessel. It is related from Ibn Hamid that he said: if the milk dominates, it prohibits; otherwise not; this is the view of Abu Thawr and al-Muzani, the judgment belonging to the dominant, the name and the intended meaning disappearing thereby. This is a view of the partisans of personal opinion, who added: if fire touched the milk so as to cook the food or change it, there is no suckling.
The argument of the first view: as soon as the milk is pure, it has been drunk and it makes the flesh grow and strengthens the bone; the prohibition is established as if it dominated. This holds as long as the qualities of the milk remain; but if it is poured into much water without being changed, the prohibition is not established: it is neither mixed milk, nor a means of nutrition, nor growth of flesh nor strengthening of bone. It is related from al-Qadi that the prohibition is established, as al-Shafi'i said, because parts of the milk reached his stomach, resembling the case where its color would be apparent. Our argument: this is neither suckling nor of its meaning; its ruling must therefore not apply to it (al-Mughni, 8/140).
Imam Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) said: does the prohibiting milk, once it has reached the throat, have as a condition that it not be mixed with something else? They differed on this too. Ibn al-Qasim said: if the milk is dissolved in water or something else and the child is then fed with it, no prohibition results, and Abu Hanifa and his companions followed him. Al-Shafi'i, Ibn Habib, Mutarrif and Ibn al-Majishun, among the companions of Malik, said that the prohibition occurs, in the likeness of the case where the milk is unmixed or mixed without its essence disappearing.
The cause of their disagreement: does milk retain the ruling of prohibition when mixed with something else, like impurity mixed with lawful pure water? The criterion is whether the name of milk continues to apply, like water: does it purify if a pure thing mixes with it? Sixth issue: is reaching the throat taken into account or not? It is likely that this is the cause of their disagreement concerning the instillation of milk and the enema with milk, a disagreement over a point of doubt: does the milk reach through these organs or not? (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 2/28-29).
Secondly: if the milk is mixed with food. The jurists differ: must the name of the milk remain? If the milk is made into cheese and the child eats it, is the prohibition established or not?
The majority of jurists, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis in the madhhab, hold that it is not a condition, for establishing the prohibition, that the milk remain in the form it had when it left the breast. If cheese or curd (aqit) is made from it, butter is skimmed from it, or flour is kneaded with it and the child is fed with it, the prohibition is established: there is nutrition, the milk comes from the throat and makes the flesh grow and the bone strengthen, so the prohibition occurred as if he had drunk it.
If it is scattered in food, the prohibition is established; likewise if he kneads flour with it and bread is made: the prohibition attaches to it. The Malikis, however, stipulate that the milk dominate, which is the sense of the madhhab among the others. Abu Hanifa and the Hanbalis, in one transmission, hold that there is no prohibition, because the name has vanished (at-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/221; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/176; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiyya of al-Dasuqi, 3/468; Rawdat al-Talibin, 6/6; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/201; Kanz al-Raghibin, 4/155; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/132; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 10/111; al-Dibaj, 3/597; al-Mughni, 8/140; al-Majmu', 8/170; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 5/633; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/523).
The Hanafis say: if the milk is made into churned butter, curdled milk, shiraz, cheese, aqit or whey, and the child consumes it, no prohibition is established: the name of suckling does not apply to it, and it does not make the flesh grow, nor strengthen the bone, nor suffice the child for feeding; so no prohibition.
If the milk is mixed with food, medicine, water, the milk of an animal or the milk of another woman: if it is mixed with food and fire touched it until cooking it, there is no prohibition, by consensus, because it has changed in nature through cooking. If fire did not touch it and the food dominates, the prohibition is not established, because the dominant food strips the milk of its strength and removes its meaning, which is nutrition; so no prohibition.
If the milk dominates the food and the food remains perceptible, they differed. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad say: the prohibition is established, because consideration of the dominant and treating the dominated as nothing is a principle of the religious Law; it must therefore be considered whenever possible, as when it is mixed with water or the milk of a sheep. Imam Abu Hanifa says: the prohibition is not established, because the food, though less than the milk, strips it of its strength: it thins and weakens it to the point that this is perceived by sight, and it no longer suffices to feed the child; the milk is therefore dominated in meaning, even if dominant in form (Tuhfat al-Fuqaha, 2/239; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 4/9; al-Hidaya, 1/224; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 3/245; al-Jawhara an-Nira, 4/380-381; al-Lubab, 2/65-66; al-Mughni, 8/140; al-Majmu', 8/170).
Thirdly: if the child receives milk by enema (huqna). The jurists differ over the case where milk reaches the child through the way of injection, namely what enters through the back passage or the vagina: is there prohibition or not?
The Shafi'is in opposition to the most apparent view, and Ibn Hamid and Ibn Abi Musa among the Hanbalis, hold that there is prohibition: it is a way through which what reaches causes the breaking of the fast, so the prohibition attaches to it as to suckling.
The Hanafis, the Shafi'is in the most apparent view and the Hanbalis in the madhhab hold that the arrival of milk in the child by way of enema does not prohibit, and has no effect even five times.
The Malikis, for their part, say: if the child receives an enema of milk and it reaches his stomach, it establishes the prohibition, on condition that it be actually nourishing at the moment of pouring; if he afterwards needs food taken by mouth, there is no prohibition if it is not nourishing. What reaches through an upper passage, such as the nose, does not require the condition of being nourishing: mere arrival at the stomach suffices for the prohibition (at-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/221; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 4/177; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the hashiyya of al-Dasuqi, 3/468; the hashiyya of al-Sawi on al-Sharh al-Saghir, 6/144).
The jurists differ: does the prohibiting suckling require a determinate number, or does the single suckling, even one suction reaching the stomach, establish the prohibition?
The Hanafis, the Malikis, the Shafi'is in one opinion and Imam Ahmad in one transmission hold that suckling, little or abundant, if it takes place during the period of suckling and reaches the stomach, establishes the prohibition, even for a single suction, by virtue of the word of Allah: "your mothers who breastfed you, and your sisters through nursing" (Surah An-Nisa, 23). Allah prohibited the mother who nursed, and she who nursed once is covered by that name: the prohibition therefore applies. And to the hadith of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) reported from the Prophet:
What is forbidden by birth is forbidden by sucklingReported by al-Bukhari (2644) and Muslim (4642)
In another version: "by descent", without distinction. The Prophet therefore prohibited through suckling what is unlawful through descent, and it is established that descent, as soon as it is established through one aspect, prohibits even if it is not established through another. Suckling must have this same ruling, the establishment of the prohibition applying to a single suckling, the Prophet having placed the two on the same level in attaching the prohibition.
To the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) reported from the Prophet: "There is no suckling except what strengthens the bone and makes the flesh grow": it is a weak hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (2059), authentic as a statement stopped (mawquf) at Ibn Mas'ud. And little milk suffices: as soon as the milk reaches the child's stomach, it makes the flesh grow and strengthens the bone. And to the word of the Prophet: "Suckling is a remedy against hunger", meaning what fills the hunger; and a single suckling fills the hunger.
And to what al-Bukhari reported from Abdallah ibn Abi Mulayka, who said: 'Ubayd ibn Abi Maryam reported to me from 'Uqba ibn al-Harith; I had myself heard it from 'Uqba, but the report of 'Ubayd is better fixed in my memory. He said:
I married, then a black woman came to us and said: "I nursed you both." I went to the Prophet and said: "I married the daughter of so-and-so, then a black woman came to us and told me: I nursed you both, while she is a liar." He turned away from me. I came back to him from before his face and said: "She is a liar." He said: "How so, when she claims to have nursed you both? Leave her."Reported by al-Bukhari (4816)
This hadith contains the fact that the Messenger of Allah refrained from ascertaining the number of sucklings that this black woman mentioned, and this indicates that the little and the abundant are equal in prohibition. Had it been part of his Law that the suckling and the two sucklings, and so on up to the number mentioned in this hadith, do not prohibit, it would have been impossible for the Messenger of Allah to order the one who asked him to separate from the woman who claimed to have nursed them both; he would rather have said to him: ask her the number of sucklings, so as to know whether it is a suckling that really prohibits him, and then to take precaution in case of doubt, or to conclude that it does not prohibit him and conclude the marriage. That refraining therefore shows that he made no difference between the little and the abundant in prohibition.
It is reported from Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both): "A single suckling prohibits." And it is reported that when he learned that Abdallah ibn al-Zubayr said that the suckling and the two sucklings do not prohibit, he said: "The judgment of Allah is better than the judgment of Ibn al-Zubayr," and he recited the word of Allah: "your mothers who breastfed you" (Surah An-Nisa, 23). And it is reported that when he was told that Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said that the suction and the two suctions do not prohibit, he said: "The judgment of Allah is more just and better than her judgment."
And because every meaning that renders unlawful permanently does not require a number: its origin is the contract and intercourse. Likewise that by which the permanent prohibition occurred takes no account of number, like intercourse and the marriage contract. And because it is a ruling attached to drinking: no number is taken into account, as with the punishment for wine. And because what reaches the stomach causes at times the breaking of the fast and at other times the prohibition of suckling: number not being taken into account in the breaking of the fast, it is not in suckling (Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, 11/499-500; Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama, 314; Ahkam al-Qur'an, 3/66-67; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 4/7-8; al-Mabsut, 5/134; al-Jawhara an-Nira, 4/373; al-Lubab, 2/61; Mukhtasar al-Wiqaya, 1/381; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 2/181; al-Istidhkar, 6/249 and 252; al-Ishraf 'ala nakt al-masa'il al-khilafiyya, 4/49-50, no. 1400; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 2/27; Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 5/109; al-Ifsah, 2/204; Rawdat al-Talibin, 6/9-10; al-Mughni, 8/137).
The Shafi'is in the madhhab and the Hanbalis in the madhhab hold that what establishes suckling is five separate sucklings, and nothing below that. They rely on what Muslim reported, from 'Amra, from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her):
There was among what was revealed of the Qur'an ten confirmed sucklings that render (marriage) unlawful, then they were abrogated by five confirmed ones, and the Messenger of Allah passed away while they were part of what is recited of the Qur'an.Reported by Muslim (3307)
The meaning is that the abrogation by the five sucklings came very late: the Prophet passed away while some people were still reciting the five sucklings as Qur'an, the abrogation not having reached them because of its closeness. When it reached them afterwards, they turned away from it and agreed that it is no longer recited. Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him), after relating this statement, states that abrogation is of three types: that whose ruling and recitation were abrogated, like the ten sucklings; that whose recitation alone was abrogated and not its ruling, like the five sucklings and the case of the old man and the old woman fornicators to be stoned; and that whose ruling was abrogated while its recitation remains, which is the most frequent, like the verse of the bequest to the wives (Sharh al-Nawawi 'ala Sahih Muslim, 10/29).
This report therefore contains the explanation of the prohibiting suckling mentioned in the verse, for it clarifies which sucklings prohibit. It also explains his words "the suckling and the two sucklings do not prohibit": those words are the answer to a questioner who asked whether the suckling and the two sucklings render unlawful, and he answered no. For it is of his Sunna and his Law that only five sucklings prohibit, and that they abrogated the ten. It is as if a questioner asked whether the thief's hand is cut off for one or two dirhams: the answer would be no, because the Messenger of Allah clarified that it applies only to a quarter of a dinar; the same applies to his clarification of the five sucklings.
And to what 'Urwa ibn al-Zubayr reported: Abu Hudhayfa ibn 'Utba ibn Rabi'a, a companion of the Messenger of Allah who had taken part in Badr, had adopted Salim, called Salim the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfa, as the Messenger of Allah had adopted Zayd ibn Haritha. Abu Hudhayfa had married him, believing he was his son, to the daughter of his paternal uncle Fatima bint al-Walid ibn 'Utba ibn Rabi'a, then one of the first emigrants and women of the nobility of Quraysh. When Allah revealed in His Book, concerning Zayd ibn Haritha, the verse:
"Call them by the names of their fathers: that is more just with Allah. But if you do not know their fathers, then they are your brothers in religion and your allies."
Surah Luqman, 5
each of them was returned to his father, and if the father was not known, to his freedman. Sahla bint Suhayl, the wife of Abu Hudhayfa, of the Banu 'Amir ibn Lu'ayy, then came to the Messenger of Allah and said: "O Messenger of Allah, we considered Salim as a son; he used to enter upon me while I wore only a veil, and we had only one house. What do you see concerning him?" The Messenger of Allah said to her: "Nurse him five sucklings, and he will become unlawful to you through your milk." She did so, and she then saw him as a son through suckling. Aisha, mother of the believers, took this rule for the men she wished to see enter upon her: she ordered her sister Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr al-Siddiq and her niece to nurse those she loved to see enter upon her.
The other wives of the Prophet refused to let anyone enter upon them by that kind of suckling and said: "No, by Allah: we see in what the Messenger of Allah ordered Sahla bint Suhayl only a dispensation concerning the suckling of Salim alone; by Allah, no one will enter upon us by that kind of suckling." Such was the position of the wives of the Prophet concerning the suckling of the adult (authentic hadith reported by Malik in the Muwatta, 1265, and by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, 4215).
Had the prohibition attached without the five sucklings, the mention of the number five would have no meaning, and the Prophet would have ordered Abu Hudhayfa's wife to give Salim three sucklings; this refutes the generality of what precedes as well as its implication, whose scope is generality. The proof by meaning: every cause by which the permanent prohibition was lifted, when it belongs to the kind of making lawful, requires a number, like the li'an; what does not belong to the kind of making lawful does not require a number, like marriage and intercourse.
And because it is an act of drinking that does not exceed custom: it must therefore not produce prohibition, like the suckling of the adult. What produces the prohibition is of two kinds: words and deeds. Just as, among words, some require a number, namely the li'an, it must be that, among deeds, some require a number, namely suckling. Rule: it is one of the branches of prohibition, so there must be among them what requires a number, like words. And the arrival of milk at the stomach, when it involves a determinate number, does not produce prohibition, like the enema and the instillation.
The answer to the verse is on two sides. Firstly: the word of Allah "your mothers who breastfed you" presupposes first that she be a mother, then that she nurses and prohibits; but the generality of the verse contains nothing establishing that she be a mother: had the verse said "those who nursed you are your mothers", the generality would apply to them. Secondly: there is no difference between the description preceding or following the described for applying it in its generality, as long as no specification has come; and it has come through the reports that aim at the quantum of what produces the prohibition.
The prohibition is therefore established only by five separate sucklings: the Law mentioned them absolutely, so they were referred to custom, which is that the child suckles, then detaches of his own choice without accident, then returns after a time, then suckles again, and so on until the required number. Just as custom is that meals be separated in time. If, however, he ceases to suckle because of lack of breath or something distracting him, then returns, or moves from one breast to the other, all of that is one suckling, as a meal interrupted to catch one's breath, drink water or move from one food to another remains a single meal.
Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: only five separate sucklings render unlawful: the infant suckles, then detaches, then suckles again; if he suckles in one go what is established as having reached his stomach, little or much, that is one suckling; and if he detaches then returns for a like amount or more, that is one suckling. If the wet nurse takes the breast then turns away from it a little to breathe then returns, that is a single suckling. Detachment is only a clear separation, like the one under oath who eats only once during the day: he eats and breathes between mouthfuls until the end, and that counts as one time, however long; if he interrupts clearly, after little or much food, then eats again, he is perjured and those are two meals.
If he takes one breast, empties it, moves to the other and empties it, that is a single suckling, for suckling may take place through the remainder of breath, the sending and the return, as food and drink through the remainder of breath remain a single meal. No account is taken of the little or the much of his suckling: what has reached the stomach constitutes a suckling; without five complete ones, no prohibition. Feeding from a vessel equals suckling, likewise instillation, the head being a hollow.
Al-Shafi'i said: if someone asks why a single suckling does not render unlawful, whereas some of the early ones said it prohibits, we answer: by what Aisha reports of the Book, which prohibited ten sucklings then abrogated them by five; and by the word of the Prophet: "The suckling and the two sucklings do not render unlawful"; and by the order given by the Messenger of Allah to give Salim five prohibiting sucklings. That shows that suckling does not render unlawful below the minimum bearing that name, and none of those who were with the Prophet is a proof (al-Umm, 5/27; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 11/361 and 370; al-Muhadhdhab, 2/156; al-Bayan, 11/144 and 146; Sharh al-Nawawi 'ala Sahih Muslim, 10/29; Rawdat al-Talibin, 6/9-10; Asna al-Matalib, 3/417; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/204; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/134).
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the sucklings must be separate, and al-Shafi'i said likewise; the criterion for knowing a suckling is custom, the Law having mentioned them absolutely, with no limit of time or measure, which shows the referral to custom. If the child suckles and detaches clearly of his own choice, that is a suckling; if he returns, it is another. If he detaches for lack of breath, to change breasts, for a distraction, or the wet nurse pauses with him by looking away: if he does not return quickly, it is one suckling; if he returns immediately, there are two views.
The first view: the first is a suckling and the return is another; this is the choice of Abu Bakr and the apparent sense of Ahmad's words in the transmission of Hanbal: the child suckles the breast, and when breath catches him, he stops to breathe or rest; that counts as one suckling, the first being one even had he not returned, as if he had stopped of his own choice. The second view: all of it is one suckling; this is the madhhab of al-Shafi'i, except when the wet nurse interrupts him, regarding which there are two views. Had he sworn "I did not eat today except one meal" and kept eating, or interrupted to drink, change food or await what was brought to him, only one meal would be counted; the same applies here. The first view is sounder, because a little of the instillation and of feeding from a vessel constitutes a suckling (al-Mughni, 8/137-139; al-Kafi, 3/342; Sharh al-Zarkashi, 2/552; al-Majmu', 8/166-167; al-Insaf, 9/334; Kashshaf al-Qina', 5/522-523; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 5/632; Manar al-Sabil, 3/182).
The Shafi'is in one opinion and Imam Ahmad in one transmission hold that the prohibition is established only by three sucklings; this is the view of Abu Thawr, Abu 'Ubayd, Dawud and Ibn al-Mundhir, by virtue of the word of the Prophet: "The suction and the two suctions do not render unlawful" (Reported by Muslim, 1450), and the word of Umm al-Fadl:
A Bedouin entered upon the Prophet of Allah while he was in my house and said: "O Prophet of Allah, I had a wife and I married another, and my first wife claims she nursed my new wife one or two sucklings." The Prophet of Allah said: "Two women having one husband in common do not render each other unlawful."Reported by Muslim (1450)
In another version: "A man of the Banu 'Amir ibn Sa'sa'a said: O Messenger of Allah, does a single suckling render unlawful? He said: No." And in another: "One suckling or two sucklings do not render unlawful, nor one suction or two suctions" (Reported by Muslim, 1451). That shows that three sucklings prohibit, and what involves number and repetition sees three considered (Rawdat al-Talibin, 6/9-10; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 8/204; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 5/134; al-Mughni, 8/138; al-Kafi, 3/342; Sharh al-Zarkashi, 2/552; al-Majmu', 8/166-167; al-Insaf, 9/334; Manar al-Sabil, 3/182).
Imam Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) explains the cause of the jurists' disagreement: they set the general text of the Book against the hadiths of specification, and set those hadiths against one another. As for the general text, it is the word of Allah: "your mothers who breastfed you" (Surah An-Nisa, 23), which requires everything upon which the name of suckling applies. The hadiths opposed to it go back to two hadiths of meaning.
The first is the hadith of Aisha and what goes in its meaning: "the suction and the two suctions, or the suckling and the two sucklings do not render unlawful", reported by Muslim through the way of Aisha, through that of Umm al-Fadl, and through a third way in which he says: "Two women having one husband in common do not render each other unlawful". The second is the hadith of Sahla concerning Salim: "Nurse him five sucklings", with the hadith of Aisha on the ten sucklings abrogated by five. Whoever prefers the apparent sense of the Qur'an over these hadiths says that the suction and the two suctions prohibit. Whoever makes the hadiths explanatory of the verse, reconciles them with it, and prefers the implication of the argument of address in "the suction and the two suctions do not render unlawful" over that of Salim's hadith says that it is three sucklings and more that prohibit; the matter is the weighing of one of the two arguments (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 2/27).