Benefits of the Hadith: (… then he said, “It is yours, O ‘Abd. The child belongs to the bed, and the stone to the fornicator. Veil yourself from him, O Sawdah bint Zam‘ah.” She said, “So she never saw Sawdah again.”)

The Shaykh : This hadith, as it appears in the title, states that the child belongs to the bed. By “bed” is meant the one who is permitted to lie with the woman. Two men are permitted to lie with her: the husband and the master. No one else is permitted to lie with her. To avoid doubt, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered Sawdah bint Zam‘ah to veil herself from the young man, even though he had ruled that he was her brother, as he was the son of her father. A woman is not obligated to veil herself from her brother. However, the doubt that arose was a clear and obvious doubt regarding ‘Utbah, the fornicator who had intercourse with this slave woman, and she bore this child from him. Now, two things are in dispute regarding the child: the first is a lawful cause, and the second is a forbidden cause. What is the lawful cause? The bed, because this child was born from Zam‘ah’s slave woman, who was his bed. The second cause is forbidden, which is the doubt, because it came from fornication, so it is a forbidden cause. Which of the two do we take? There is no doubt that we take the lawful cause, for in that lies the preservation of lineages and preventing them from being lost. We do not take the forbidden cause. But if a circumstance or doubt exists, we avoid doubts. Accordingly, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ruled that the child belongs to the bed, but a doubt was found indicating that it did not belong to him, so the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ruled based on that doubt to avoid it, and ordered Sawdah to do what? To veil herself. Thus, the action here is based on the lawful cause, but we took precaution due to the existence of the doubt. Some scholars said that it is not a precaution, but rather acting on two pieces of evidence: the first evidence is the bed, and the second is the doubt. But this opinion is very weak, because it is not possible to act on two causes with different rulings due to what? Contradiction. For two causes with different rulings cannot have an agreed-upon ruling; it is either this or that. So the correct view is that the ruling here is for the bed, but due to the existence of the doubt, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered Sawdah to veil herself from him, even though he was her brother. Why? Because of the doubt. Good. And in his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) Do we say that the ruling is now composed of the two causes, meaning that if a bed and a fornicator are found, we prioritize the one with the bed? And if a fornicator is found without a bed and claims the child, does the child belong to him? There is disagreement among scholars on this. Some said that it is so, if no bed is found and the fornicator claims him, saying, “This is my son, created from my seed,” and no one had intercourse with the woman except this fornicator, then the child is his son by necessity, without doubt. If the child comes from a fornicator with certainty, then he is his son by necessity, without doubt. That is, we rule that he is his son by a ruling of what? Necessity. But is it ruled that he is his son by a Shari‘ah ruling? We say that the stronger opinion in this issue is that if this ruling of necessity is contested by a Shari‘ah ruling, the Shari‘ah ruling is prioritized. What contests and opposes it? The bed, the husband or the master. So if there is no husband and no master, then if the fornicator claims him, he is attributed to him. This is the stronger opinion. An example of this is: a man commits zina with a woman, may Allah protect us, and she becomes pregnant from him and gives birth to a child. The father says, “This is my son. No one contests me in this, and I want him to be my son, to spend on him, to inherit from him and for him to inherit from me, to pay the blood money for him and for him to pay it for me, and that his lineage not be lost, and he has no one to contest him. What prevents this? And the ruling of necessity is established for him, and no Shari‘ah ruling contests it. For this reason, the opinion of the majority in this issue is a weak opinion, which is that they rule that the child of zina is not attributed to the fornicator absolutely, even if he claims him and says, “He is my son,” and there is a benefit in preserving the child’s lineage and that he not be known among people as a child of fornication, and there is a benefit in that. The correct view is that he is attributed to him. But the question remains: is it permissible for the fornicating man to marry this woman while she is pregnant, because the child is his, or is it not permissible? The opinion adopted by the majority is that it is not permissible, because the child is not his son, even if he claims him. We see that it is permissible, but we see it theoretically, not as a fatwa or practically. Because if this door were opened, every person who wants a woman to marry would commit zina with her and then marry her. And this is easy for people of fornication, may Allah protect us. Therefore, we refrain from issuing a fatwa on it, even though we see it theoretically correct, because this is the reality. Accordingly, the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) This cause is composed of two parts: that there is a bed and what? And fornication. So here, if this and this are in dispute, the child is what? For the bed. But if there is no bed and the fornicator claims him, and it is known that he was created from his seed, then there is no harm in attributing him to him, and it is said, “The child is yours.” And in this is evidence for acting with precaution, as you have known. And from that is the mother of the wife through breastfeeding. The majority of scholars are of the opinion that she is forbidden to the husband. The daughter of the wife through breastfeeding: the majority of scholars are of the opinion that she is what? Forbidden to the husband. The daughter of the wife through breastfeeding, but she was breastfed by her before the man married her. But if she was breastfed by her after he married her, then she is what? She is his daughter, there is no doubt. But if she was breastfed by this woman from a previous husband, is this daughter forbidden to the husband of the mother? The majority say yes, and the stronger opinion is no, she is not forbidden. But is it permissible to marry her? We say it is permissible, without doubt, but due to the strength of the disagreement, he should not marry her as a precaution, unless there are no daughters of Adam left except this woman. In that case, out of necessity, we permit it for him. He said, “Yes.”