and others said that it was specific to Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah. Those who held that it was specific then differed: was this a specificity of person, or a specificity of circumstance? The difference between the two is that, if we say it was specific to the person, this means that it applied exclusively to Salim himself and does not extend to anyone else. But if we say it was specific to a circumstance, it may extend to others whose situation resembles that of Salim.

We have often stated that the Sacred Law contains no rulings specific to an individual person. Even the Prophet’s distinctive rulings were not assigned to him because he was Muhammad ibn Abdullah, but because he was the Messenger of Allah; and the Messengership is something in which no one shares with him. Thus, we do not recognize person-specific rulings, and the basic presumption is that they do not exist. Moreover, had this been a case of personal specificity, the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, would have made that clear, just as he clarified it to Abu Burdah, may Allah be pleased with him, when he said: “It will not suffice for anyone after you.” (1)

As for specificity of circumstance, it is more plausible. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, chose this view. He said: if the purpose of nursing is nourishment, then it can only take place during the nursing period; but if the purpose of nursing is to meet a need, then it is permissible even for an adult. In my view, however, this too is weak: adult nursing has no legal effect whatsoever, unless we find a situation resembling that of Abu Hudhayfah in every respect.

Some scholars hold that an unrestricted need permits adult nursing: whenever a woman needs to nurse this person while he is an adult, she may do so, and he becomes her son. But if we examine the matter closely, we would say: it is not every