They say: This fixed period is more precise than defining it by anything else, because the two years can be measured exactly. Thus, if a child is born at twelve noon, and two full years pass until twelve noon, having nursed four times, one nursing remains. If, for example, a woman nurses him half an hour after twelve, that nursing has no legal effect, because it did not take place within the specified period. There is no doubt that this is more precise.

However, what weakens this view is that nursing after weaning has no effect on the body’s growth or nourishment. There is no difference between nursing a child who is one year and eight months old after he has been weaned, and nursing him when he is four years old, since he will derive no benefit or growth from such nursing. This is supported by the Prophet’s saying, peace and blessings be upon him: “There is no nursing except that which opens up the intestines and occurs before weaning.” (1) Here, the negation is of legal effect, not of the actual occurrence, for a child may indeed be nursed after that. That is, there is no effective nursing except that which opens up the intestines and occurs before weaning.

Thus, the latter view is stronger in terms of meaning, while the former is stronger in terms of precision. Let us consider:

First: if the child is weaned at two years, the two views agree.

Second: if the child is weaned at eighteen months, then according to the view that the determining factor is two years, nursing thereafter is effective; whereas according to the view that the determining factor is weaning, nursing thereafter has no legal effect.