It is also reported from ʿAli, ʿUrwah, and ʿAṭāʾ. The same position was adopted by al-Layth ibn Saʿd, Dāwūd, and Ibn Ḥazm, who vigorously defended it in his book al-Muḥallā and rebutted the proofs of the dissenters.

Whenever ʿĀʾishah wished to admit a man into her presence, she would instruct her sister Umm Kulthūm—or the daughters of her brother—to nurse him first.

The evidence cited by this group is the authentic report in which Sahlah bint Suhayl said: “Messenger of Allah, Salim—the freedman of Abū Ḥudhayfah—lives with us in the house and has reached the age of men.” He replied, “Nurse him, and he will become forbidden to you.” From then on Salim held the status of her son through nursing. [Muslim]

This ḥadīth is sound; its authenticity is beyond dispute. Those who insist on the two-year limit answer it in one of two ways:

1. They claim it has been abrogated. Yet abrogation requires knowing the chronological order of the texts, and we possess no knowledge of which came first and which came later. Had it truly been abrogated, those who debated ʿĀʾishah on this issue—among the Prophet’s wives and others—would certainly have said so.

2. They argue for particularization, holding that the concession applied solely to Salim and Sahlah and to no one else.

Their reasoning is that Sahlah came in distress, fearing sin and hardship after the verse on hijab was revealed, so the Prophet ﷺ granted her a dispensation, effectively exempting her from the general ruling.

They add: This path is indispensable; otherwise we face two unacceptable alternatives—either to abrogate this ḥadīth by the reports that stipulate infancy for prohibition, or to abrogate those reports with this ḥadīth. That cannot be, for we do not know which texts precede the others. By adopting this approach we can act on all the reports: this ḥadīth remains specific to Salim and Sahlah, while the other reports apply to the rest of the community.