that a man is not permitted to water with his own semen one whose womb is occupied—or may be occupied—by another man’s semen. Hence, it is forbidden for a man to have intercourse with a woman observing her waiting period; even if he were to marry her, the marriage would not be valid.

Likewise, during the campaign of Awtas, the Prophet ﷺ forbade intercourse with a pregnant woman until she gives birth, or with a menstruating woman until she has menstruated once (1). Consider whether this proof is narrower or broader than the ruling mentioned by the author.

The proof mentions only intercourse, whereas the author says, “and its preliminaries.” Thus, the proof is narrower than the proposition being inferred. It is well known that one cannot use a narrower proof to establish a broader ruling. The proof establishes the prohibition of intercourse; but where is the proof for prohibiting its preliminaries, such as touching and the like?

We therefore say that citing this hadith as evidence for the ruling is correct in one respect and incorrect in another: it is correct with respect to the prohibition of intercourse, but incorrect with respect to the prohibition of its preliminaries. This is a useful principle for the debater: if his opponent cites something that is narrower than the proposition he seeks to establish, he has the right to reject it insofar as it is being used to establish what is broader; but he does not have the right to reject what the proof actually establishes.

Thus, we must consider the author’s statement, “and its preliminaries”: is it correct, especially in view of his citing this hadith as evidence? The answer is that it is not correct. The hadith does not indicate that the preliminaries to intercourse are prohibited. Thus, it is permissible for him to do