charged me concerning him. Abd ibn Zam‘ah, Saudah’s brother, said: “O Messenger of Allah, he is my brother: he was born on my father’s bed, from his slave woman.” Sa‘d said to him: “O Messenger of Allah, look at his resemblance.” When the Prophet ﷺ looked at his resemblance, he saw a clear resemblance to Utbah. Yet he said: “The child belongs to the bed, and the adulterer receives nothing but the stone. Veil yourself from him, O Saudah.” (1)

Thus, he ruled that this boy was Saudah’s brother, but ordered her to veil herself from him as a precaution, because he saw a clear resemblance to Utbah. Is this a case of applying both proofs, or a case of precaution? Some have said that it is a case of applying both proofs, while others have said that it is a case of precaution. The closer view is that it is a case of precaution, because the rulings entailed by these two proofs are mutually incompatible and cannot be combined: it is either this or that. Therefore, if someone were to say that nursing does not establish prohibition with respect to marital relations, but that he would nevertheless instruct a man not to marry such women as a precaution, this would not be far from correct.

That Which Establishes Prohibition Is Five Feedings

His statement: “That which establishes prohibition is five feedings.” The author begins by discussing the conditions of nursing that establishes prohibition. Nursing that establishes prohibition consists of five feedings. The evidence for this is what Muslim narrated from Aishah, may Allah be pleased with her, who said: “Among what was revealed of the Quran was that ten known feedings established prohibition. Then they were abrogated by five known feedings, and the Prophet ﷺ died while this was still recited as part of the Quran.” (2) Accordingly, anything fewer than five has no effect.

If someone were to say: Aishah’s hadith, “Five known feedings establish prohibition,” does not indicate exclusivity, for it does not say