Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

then the child who nursed from the milk of the woman with whom he had intercourse cannot be ascribed to him. Accordingly, this child has a mother but no father, just as the child of fornication has a mother but no father.

“The converse is the case with an animal, or with a woman who is neither pregnant nor has been intercourse with. Whenever a woman nurses a child, he becomes her child with respect to marriage, looking, seclusion, and unmarriageability, …”

His statement, “The converse is the case with an animal,” means that an animal’s milk does not establish marital prohibition. If, hypothetically, two children were to nurse from an animal, each nursing five times, would they become foster siblings? No. Otherwise, everyone in a household who drank the milk of one cow would become siblings.

From this, we understand that the milk must come from a human female. The phrase “from a human female” excludes other animals, such as livestock, and also excludes a man. Thus, if two children were to nurse from a man, they would not become siblings. The scholars have mentioned that this is conceivable; yet they would not become his children, because Allah says: “Mothers shall nurse their children,” and he is not a mother.

His statement, “nor with a woman who is pregnant,” means that if a woman nurses a child without having been pregnant—and this occurs frequently, for a child may cry and a woman who has no milk and has never married may come and put her breast in his mouth, intending to quiet him; then, through his suckling, milk begins to flow, and he nurses five times or more—does he become her child? The author says: No, because it occurred without pregnancy. But this reasoning is insufficient to negate this important ruling. The sound view, held by the three imams, is that it does establish marital prohibition: if a child drinks from a woman five times, he becomes her child, whether she is a virgin, past menopause, or married. It establishes prohibition both by textual evidence and by sound reasoning.

The textual evidence is the general meaning of Allah’s saying: “And your mothers who nursed you.” Neither the Quran nor the sunnah stipulates that the milk must result from pregnancy, so the texts remain upon their general meaning.

فالذي رضع من لبن موطوءته لا ينسب إليه، وعليه فيكون لهذا الولد أم ولا أب له، كما أن ولد الزنا له أم وليس له أب. وَعَكْسُهُ الْبَهِيمَةُ، وَغَيْرُ حُبْلَى، وَلَا مَوْطُوءَةٍ، فَمَتَى أَرْضَعَتِ امْرَأَةٌ طِفْلاً صَارَ وَلَدَهَا فِي النِّكَاحِ، وَالنَّظَرِ، وَالْخَلْوَةِ، وَالْمَحْرَمِيَّةِ، ............ قوله: «وعكسُه البهيمةُ» يعني أن لبن البهيمة غير محرم، فلو فرضنا أن طفلين ارتضعا من بهيمة، كل واحد رضع خمس مرات، هل يكونان أخوين من الرضاع؟! لا، وإلا لأصبح أهل البيت إذا كانوا يشربون من لبن بقرة واحدة إخوة. فنستفيد من هذا أنه يشترط أن يكون اللبن من آدمية، وكلمة «من آدمية» يخرج بها الحيوان الآخر كالبهائم، ويخرج به ـ أيضاً ـ الرجل، فلو ارتضع طفلان من رجل لم يصيرا أخوين، وقد ذكر العلماء أنه يتصور، فلا يكونون أولاداً له؛ لأن الله قال: ﴿وَالْوَالِدَاتُ يُرْضِعْنَ﴾ وهذا ليس بوالدة. قوله: «وغَيْرُ حُبْلَى» يعني لو أن امرأة أرضعت طفلاً بدون حمل، وهذا يقع كثيراً فإن بعض الصبيان يبكي، فتأتي امرأة ليس فيها لبن ولم تتزوج فتلقمه ثديها تريد أن تسكته، ومع المص تدر عليه، ويكون فيها لبن، ويرضع خمس مرات أو أكثر، فهل يكون ولداً لها؟ يقول المؤلف: لا؛ لأنه حصل من غير حمل، وهذا التعليل لا يكفي في عدم إثبات هذا الحكم المهم، والصواب الذي عليه الأئمة الثلاثة أنه محرِّم، وأن الطفل إذا شرب من امرأة خمس مرات فإنه يكون ولداً لها، سواء كانت بكراً، أم آيسة، أم ذات زوج، فهو محرم بالدليل والتعليل. فالدليل: عموم قول الله ﵎: ﴿وَأُمَهَاتُكُمُ اللاَّتِي أَرْضَعْنَكُمْ﴾ وليس في الكتاب ولا في السنة اشتراط أن يكون اللبن ناتجاً عن حمل فتبقى النصوص على عمومها.

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies