Continuation of the interpretation of the verse: “Forbidden to you are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters…”

Continuation of the interpretation of the noble verse: .
This is the position adopted by Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), and it is the correct one: that it is five breastfeedings. In the hadith, "known" is mentioned, which implies that if there is doubt about the number—whether it is five or four—then it is not taken into account; this breastfeeding is not considered, because the hadith is qualified by what? By "known." And with doubt, the ruling is not established. This is what gives a person peace of mind regarding what a person issues as a ruling in this matter, because many people come to me and say, "The breastfeeding is established, but we do not know how much breastfeeding it is." We say, "Praise be to Allah, as long as the hadith states five known breastfeedings, then what is in doubt is not known, and consequently, the ruling is not established by it." It remains for us to look at whether the generality of the Qur'an can be restricted by the Sunnah? Yes, it is possible. It is possible to restrict the generality of the Qur'an by the Sunnah, just as the generality of the Qur'an is specified by the Sunnah. And as for the abrogation of the Qur'an by the Sunnah, the correct view is that the Qur'an is abrogated by the Sunnah if it is authentic, because all of it is from Allah (Mighty and Majestic). Allah may abrogate His statement with His statement, and Allah may abrogate His statement with the statement of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). So, how many are the forbidden ones? Five known breastfeedings. So, what are the five, or what are the breastfeedings according to the most correct view? What are the breastfeedings? Five full breastfeedings. Are the full ones in the hadith five full breastfeedings? Five breastfeedings. So some said: the breastfeeding is a suck, based on the saying: and a suck is a breastfeeding. And it is known that if a child sucks, he has breastfed and the milk has come to him through his suck. And on this basis, is it possible for the five to be in one sitting and in one breath, or not? Can a child suck five times in one breath? It is possible for him to suck five times and the breast is in his mouth. But there is some ambiguity in this, because encompassing this is difficult. And some scholars said that the intended meaning of a breastfeeding is taking the breast into the mouth. So as long as the boy is holding the breast, this is a breastfeeding. And if he releases it for any reason, the breastfeeding is completed, whether he releases it to breathe, or to hear a sound that bothered him, or because his mother is tired of the right side and moves him to the left, or something similar. The important thing is that the breastfeeding is taking the breast into the mouth. So as long as the child is holding the breast, it is a breastfeeding. And if he releases it for any reason, the breastfeeding is completed. And on this basis, it is possible for the five to be completed in one sitting. These are two opinions. The third opinion is that the breastfeeding is an act that is counted as a breastfeeding, i.e., a meal of breastfeeding, just as you say a meal (of food). As came in the hadith: Do you say "Alhamdulillah" every time you eat a bite, or at the end? At the end. So the breastfeeding is exactly like a meal. It must be that the other breastfeeding is separated from it by a time that is considered separation, such as one in the morning, one in the afternoon, one at night, one in the pre-dawn time, or something similar. And this is the choice of our Shaykh Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa'di (may Allah have mercy on him), that the intended meaning of a breastfeeding is what is separated from its sister by a clear separation to be a complete breastfeeding. And if we assume that the hadith allows for the three meanings, which are: the suck, taking the breast into the mouth, and the meal of breastfeeding, then the original state is permissibility until a clear proof is established that this breastfeeding is forbidden. And based on this original state, which is the stronger opinion: the third, the first, or the second? The third, which is the last, because we say that the indication of the hadith for the first meaning is problematic, there is ambiguity in it. And for the second meaning, there is ambiguity in it. And for the third meaning, the opinions agree, and there is no ambiguity in it. And consequently, we take this, because the original state is permissibility until the prohibition is established to lift this original state. So, the verse is general, restricted by the Sunnah: five breastfeedings. Also, in the verse there is another generality: The apparent meaning of the verse is that it includes breastfeeding in childhood and breastfeeding in adulthood. Is this intended? We say, yes, this is intended according to some scholars, according to the Zahiris, that breastfeeding an adult is like breastfeeding a child. And they took as a hint for their opinion the hadith of Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, where he was included among the sons of Abu Hudhayfah whom they adopted in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance. And it is known that if he was a son, he would enter the house day and night, and in the farthest and nearest parts of the house, exactly like a son. So when Allah invalidated adoption, the wife of Abu Hudhayfah came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said, "Salim used to enter upon us, meaning it is difficult for us to be cautious of him." So he said: Meaning, if it is forbidden for him, he is allowed to look at you and be alone with you while he is an adult. And this hadith matches the apparent meaning of the verse, so it is a witness to the generality. Did you understand? And some scholars said that breastfeeding is not considered unless it is within the two years, because of His saying: i.e., the breastfeeding that is considered by the Shari'ah. And Allah the Exalted said: So what is within the two years is considered breastfeeding, and what is after the two years is not taken into account, because this is the time of breastfeeding about which Allah the Exalted said: And this is the well-known view among most scholars, and the well-known view from the school of Imam Ahmad, that the consideration is the two years: what is before them is considered breastfeeding, and what is after them is not considered. They said: "And this is a dividing limit that does not..." And on this basis, if she breastfed him three times on Saturday, the fourth on the morning of Sunday, and the fifth after the afternoon of Sunday, but his birth was at the time of the sun's zenith, meaning he completes two years at the time of the sun's zenith, is this breastfeeding considered or not considered? It is not considered, because the fifth occurred after the two years, so it is not considered, even though the fourth has not been digested yet; it is in his stomach, but the two years have been completed. Just as a man before fifteen years is not an adult, and after that he is an adult. Meaning, if a person does something that requires adulthood on the morning of the day he reaches adulthood, he is not held accountable for it, but at the end of the day, he is held accountable. And some scholars said: the considered thing is weaning. So what is before weaning is considered, and what is after it is not considered, based on the hadith: And although there is some consideration in this regarding its authenticity, meaning it is weak, but it is supported by reasoning, because breastfeeding before weaning affects the growth of the child, and he has no food other than this. And after weaning, there is no difference between the child and the adult in the effect of breastfeeding, because if he is weaned and becomes one who eats only food, there is no difference between him and one who is ten years old. The effect of food, milk, on him is like its effect on one who is ten years old. And this opinion—that the ruling is tied to weaning—is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), that the consideration is weaning. And this, in terms of meaning, as you heard, is more correct. But there is some difficulty in it, due to its lack of regulation at times, because the child is not weaned all at once, but gradually, due to the difficulty of weaning for him. If someone said: by considering the majority of weaning or the two years, would this opinion be far-fetched? Meaning, if he is weaned before two years, the ruling extends to two years. And if the two years are completed before his weaning, the ruling extends to his weaning. If this were said, it would be good. But tying it to weaning is more correct in terms of meaning, because if he is weaned, he does not feed on milk. And the meaning of our saying he does not feed on it is not that he does not benefit from it. A person benefits from milk even if he is fifty years old. If he is fifty years old, he benefits from milk. But he does not feed on it, and it does not become food for him when he is weaned. If someone asks: what is the answer to the generality of the verse and the story of Salim? We say: As for the generality of the verse, we have mentioned that it is restricted by the number of five breastfeedings. So it is restricted by time as well, which is the two years. Then, the apparent meaning of the verse also supports the condition of weaning, because it said: And it is known that adults are not among the breastfed; they have been weaned and finished. So its apparent meaning is that meaning during the time of breastfeeding. And we respond to them regarding the story of Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, with one aspect, or rather three aspects: either it is abrogated, or it is specifically restricted to him personally, or it is restricted to him by type. Did you understand? Abrogated, or specifically restricted to him personally, or restricted to him by type. As for the opinion that it is abrogated, this is not a thing, because the original state is the absence of abrogation, and it must be established by history and the impossibility of combining. And as for the opinion that it is specifically restricted to him personally, it is also weak, because Allah (Mighty and Majestic) cannot restrict a person with a ruling except for a meaning in it, even the Prophet (peace be upon him) was not restricted with rulings except because he is a Prophet, not because he is Muhammad ibn Abdullah, because he is a Prophet. So there must be a cause by which the ruling changes and is restricted to whoever possesses it. And what is the meaning by which Salim is restricted, so that we say the ruling does not extend beyond him and is specific to him? Because if we say the ruling does not extend beyond him and the ruling is specific to him, it means that he was ruled with it because he is Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah. And this has no meaning. And on this basis, this opinion is also weak, that it is specific to him personally. It remains that it is specific to him by type, meaning if a situation like Salim's situation exists, the ruling is established. The ruling is established. And this is not possible now. It is not possible. Why? Because the adopted son is invalid; it is not possible. And on this basis, it does not concern us at all, as long as we have established that no one is restricted personally with a ruling from the Shari'ah of Allah; there must be a meaning that extends to his type. And this is not possible. But Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) did not consider, in some of his words, the words of the first opinion agree with what I said, that adoption must be considered. And the meaning of the second opinion considers it as need, and that whenever there is a need to breastfeed an adult, he breastfeeds and the ruling of breastfeeding is established. But this statement is weak, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Who is the relative? The husband's brother, or his uncle, or his maternal uncle, or something similar, his relative. And it is known that the husband's brother needs to enter the house of his brother, especially if they are in one house. If breastfeeding an adult were effective, the relative would say, "Breastfeed him, your wife, to remove the difficulty." But when he did not say that, it is known that general need does not affect the establishment of the ruling of breastfeeding an adult, and that there must be a specific need that we follow in everything that happened in the case of Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah. And if we consider that, it is now non-existent. And with this, the proofs are saved from contradiction and the combination between them is achieved. In it also Is it necessary for the breastfeeding to be direct, such that if milk is poured into a container and the child drinks it, it does not have an effect, or not? The answer: No, it is not a condition that he takes the breast into his mouth. Rather, if it is poured into a container and he drinks it, and that is divided for him five times, the breastfeeding is established, because the meaning in this exists as it exists in taking the breast into the mouth. This is in terms of the child feeding on milk. But the tenderness and love are lost from it. So if the breastfed child takes the breast into his mouth, he gets from the tenderness of the nursing mother and her love for him what does not happen if her milk is poured into a container and given to the child. Is this considered, and the Shari'ah noted the prohibition by breastfeeding because what happens from the nursing mother is like what happens from the mother by blood in terms of love and tenderness, and therefore this relationship is effective? Or is the intended meaning the feeding of the child with milk? This is the point of disagreement, as I think. But the apparent meaning is generality, meaning there is no difference between breastfeeding from the breast of the nursing mother or pouring it into a container and drinking it, because the body feeds on this and that. And Allah knows best.