This applies to a case where, at the moment he swore the oath, he was not yet a husband.

Likewise, a vow concerning something a person does not yet possess is not binding. Because at the time of utterance he owned nothing—that is, he had no marital bond—the correct view is that nothing is due from him: no divorce and no ẓihār take effect if the words were pronounced before the marriage contract.

A second scholarly opinion holds that, should he later marry that woman, whatever divorce or ẓihār he had pronounced in advance would then take effect.

***

The Default Assumption: The Marriage Remains Intact

Question: I have been married for fifteen years and have six children. Only now have I discovered that I was breast-fed together with my husband’s half-sister (his sister through his father). I heard a ḥadīth that in such circumstances “the milk is attributed to the father.” If that is true, what must we do now, and what about our children? I have informed my husband, but he has taken no interest in the matter. What is the ruling?

Answer: Yes, as you mentioned, the milk is attributed to the father. This is the issue known as laban al-faḥl (the milk of the sire), and it is well known among the scholars. The correct view is that it does create a prohibition of marriage: if a woman is breast-fed by any wife of a man, she is forbidden to marry any of that man’s sons, whether she nursed from his own mother or from a wife of his father.

As for the case you describe: since the marriage contract has already been concluded, the basic presumption is that the marriage remains valid until it is proven that the kind of nursing that makes marriage unlawful has occurred—namely, five definite suckling sessions. If it is established that she nursed from one of her husband’s father’s wives on five distinct, confirmed occasions, then