(may Allah bless him and grant him peace) to veil herself from him because of the clear resemblance to ‘Utbah that he saw. Two conflicting pieces of evidence existed in his case: the bed and the resemblance. Outwardly, the stronger claim to paternity belongs to the man to whose bed the child was born. This is also because the relationship underlying the bed is manifest and lawful, whereas fornication is a hidden matter that is not known and must be concealed, not disclosed. As he said:

“The adulterer gets the stone.”

This resembles the expressions “May your mouth be filled with dust” (1) and “May your mouth be filled with grit” (2). That is, you must remain silent rather than disclose fornication, for Allah hates such disclosure. Since she could veil herself from him without harm, he instructed her to do so because of the apparent evidence that he was not, in reality, her brother.

Thus, the same designation may be denied for one legal ruling and affirmed for another. He is a brother for purposes of inheritance, but not for purposes of mahram status. Likewise, a child born of fornication, according to some scholars, and the son of a woman who has undergone mutual imprecation with her husband, according to all but a few dissenting scholars, is not regarded as a son for purposes of inheritance and similar rulings, yet is regarded as a son with respect to the prohibition of marriage and mahram status.

The term “marriage,” and other such terms, when used in a command, encompasses the complete act—in this case, both the contract and intercourse—as in His words:

“Marry those women who please you,”

and His words:

“Until she marries a husband other than him.”

In a prohibition, however, it encompasses both the incomplete and the complete act. Thus, even the contract alone is prohibited, without intercourse, as in His words:

“Do not marry women whom your fathers married.”

This is because the purpose of one who issues a command is to secure a benefit, and that benefit is attained only through consummation. Similarly, if someone says, “Buy me some food,” the intended purpose is achieved only through both purchasing it and taking possession of it. The purpose of one who issues a prohibition, however, is to avert harm; hence every constituent part of the act falls within the prohibition, because its occurrence is itself harmful.