(1) Recorded by Muslim, 4/158, in both versions; by al-Nasai, al-‘Ashrah, 1/82, and by Ibn Mandah, al-Tawhid, 2/60, with the first wording, while al-Bukhari, 9/251–252, preserved the other. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar comments in Fath al-Bari on the first narration: “He merely hinted, without an explicit prohibition, that it is preferable to refrain, because withdrawal was practiced out of fear that a child might be conceived. Such fear is pointless: if Allah has decreed the child’s creation, withdrawal will not prevent it. The semen may precede without the man noticing, conception will occur, the child will be ascribed to him, and nothing can overturn what Allah has decreed.” I say: This indication applies only to the form of withdrawal known in that era. In our own time there are methods by which a man can prevent his semen from reaching his wife altogether, such as what is now called vasectomy (tying the ducts) and the rubber sheath placed over the organ during intercourse, and the like. In such cases, this hadith and others of similar wording are no longer relevant; rather, the rulings I mentioned under the first two situations—especially the second—apply, so reflect on this. In any event, in my view withdrawal remains merely disliked so long as it is not accompanied—together with both of those motives, or either of them—by some other aim characteristic of the unbelievers, such as fear of poverty because of many children and the burden of supporting and raising them; in that case