These hadiths in these two chapters clarify that a specific number is required to establish prohibition. So, what is this number?

The Shaykh : These hadiths in these two chapters clarify that a specific number is required to establish prohibition. So, what is this number? Some scholars said it is three, based on the implication of the statement "one or two suckles do not establish prohibition"; the implication is that three or more establish prohibition. Others said that this is an implication, and an implication does not contradict the explicit text, which is the hadith of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) that five known suckles establish prohibition. Some scholars said that a specific number is not required, and that any breastfeeding is sufficient due to the generality of the saying of Allah the Exalted: . The correct view is that a number is required, and that the general wording of the Qur'an is restricted by the Sunnah, because both are from Allah. Allah, Mighty and Majestic, said: , and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) restricted that. The correct view is also that five suckles are required, based on the hadith of Aisha. There is no weight to those who criticized this hadith, i.e., the hadith of Aisha, by saying that she mentioned that this ruling was established in the Qur'an as ten suckles, then five suckles, and that it was in the Qur'an recited after the death of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). This is not a valid criticism because it can be explained. The explanation is that this ruling was abrogated in both wording and ruling. As for the ten, they were abrogated in both wording and ruling, because if we search the Qur'an, we will not find that. As for the ruling, the ruling shifted from ten to five. As for the five, they were abrogated in wording but not in ruling, because the ruling was established, and the narration is not in the Qur'an. Abrogation is permissible, meaning abrogation of the Qur'an is permissible, whether it is abrogation of the wording, abrogation of the ruling, or abrogation of both. This does not cause harm, and it is not permissible to criticize the narrations of the trustworthy and upright with such an excuse. The problematic part is her statement that it died while it was in the Qur'an being recited. It is asked: Is there something omitted in the Qur'an? If this ruling and this verse existed in the Qur'an and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) died while it was being recited, where is it? Is it possible for anyone to delete something from the Qur'an that existed until the death of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)? No. This is another criticism of this hadith. They said that the Qur'an cannot be established by a single report, and it cannot be said that the Qur'an was found after the death of the Prophet and then deleted, because this opens a great door to evil. The scholars answered that those who did not know about the abrogation were reciting it after the death of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). This indicates that the abrogation occurred at the end of the life of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), so people were reading it after his death without knowing about the abrogation. This is also a good explanation for this hadith, and with this, the criticism is lifted from both angles. We return to the ruling. The ruling is that only five suckles establish prohibition. The scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) differed on what is meant by a "suckle." Is a suckle a single draw of the breast, or is a suckle when the child remains latched to the breast, and whenever he releases the breast for any reason, that is a suckle? Or is a suckle what is counted as a suckle, like a bite or a drink, meaning that each suckle is separated from the other by an interval? There are opinions on this, and the most correct is what our Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him), Abd al-Rahman al-Sa'di, chose: that a suckle is one that is clearly separated from the other without a reason. For example, if a child nurses at one o'clock, then at three o'clock, then at five o'clock, then at seven o'clock, then at nine o'clock, these are five suckles, each separated from the other, and there is no problem with this. But if he latched onto the breast while in the woman's lap and then was moved to the other breast, according to this opinion we mentioned, it is not counted as a suckle because the child did not leave the woman's lap, so it is not counted as a suckle. Likewise, if the child was nursing and then someone spoke or clapped his hand or something similar, and he released the breast, we look at it; this is not counted as a suckle according to this opinion chosen by our Shaykh, which is the closest and also the most cautious. Because we say the original state is non-prohibition, not prohibition, so we do not say it is prohibited unless we are certain. And as long as the wording of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) or the abrogated wording of the Qur'an is ambiguous, we leave the ambiguity until we are certain. Like one who doubts the number of rak'ahs, he builds on what? On certainty, which is the lesser number. So we say a suckle is one that is separated from the other. As for what is less than that, it does not establish prohibition. In the hadith of Aisha, it is required that the five be known, based on the phrase "five known suckles." With this, whenever the wet nurse doubts the number of suckles, this breastfeeding has no effect. This relieves the person completely, that the ruling is not established unless the suckles are what? Known. So if the wet nurse comes and says, "I nursed him, but I don't know if it was five, or one, or more, I don't know," what is the ruling? Answer? There is no effect of this, and prohibition is not established. This is with the possibility that it may be less than five. But if it is impossible that it is less than five, by saying, "By Allah, the child stayed with me for seven days, but I don't know how many times I nursed him," what do we say? We say with certainty that it is five. The child cannot stay for seven days without nursing day after day. But if it is possible that it is less than five, it is not considered until it is known. The most common question we receive is when a woman says, "By Allah, I nursed him. His mother went to the goats and I nursed him. He was sick and I nursed him. How many times? I don't know." What do we say? Prohibition is not established until it is known. And we, praise be to Allah, are on the right path; this is not just an opinion. It is based on five what? Known suckles. If they are not known, they have no effect. But knowledge may be by the mention of the wet nurse, saying, "Yes, I nursed him five suckles: in the morning, at midday, in the afternoon, in the evening, and at the end of the night," and she specifies them. Or this may be known by the length of time the child stayed with this wet nurse. We limit ourselves to this because the following discussion is extensive, and it is the issue of breastfeeding an adult: does it have an effect or not? The people of the Zahiri school say that breastfeeding an adult has an effect. They do not limit breastfeeding by anything, neither age nor number. Whenever a woman nurses a child, she is his mother, even if it is one suckle, or one draw, or if he is an adult. With this, if a woman does not want her husband and milks milk for him in a cup and gives it to him, what is the ruling? It is prohibited. May Allah except the Zahiris; I do not know their opinion in this issue except that they say breastfeeding does not establish prohibition unless it is from the breast itself. In that case, this trick is invalid. But another issue arises: some people play with their wife's breast and suck it. If milk comes out and falls, he becomes her son. A problem. But the correct view is that a time period is required and a number is required, as came in the Sunnah. Yes.