| An-Nisa: (23) Forbidden to you are your mothers . . . . .

Some researchers have said: There is no obstacle to it being informative (ikhbari), and the past tense verb here is like those in definitions, such as: "The noun is that which indicates a meaning in itself and is not linked to any of the tenses," and "The verb is that which indicates [a meaning] and is linked [to a tense]." They explicitly stated that the past tense sentence there is informative; otherwise, it would not be valid for it to be a relative clause (mawsol), even though the verb there was not intended to indicate only the past tense. Otherwise, it would necessitate that the state of the defined term in the present and future tense would not be that state. The verb was put in the passive voice (mabni lima lam yusamma fa'iluhu) because there is no doubt that the Prohibitor is Allah the Almighty.

(Your mothers) includes grandmothers, however distant, since "mother" is the root of the root, like "Mother of the Book" (Umm al-Kitab) and "Mother of the Cities" (Umm al-Qura). Thus, the prohibition of grandmothers is established by the subject of the word and its reality, because "mother" here is of the category of the "ambiguous" (mushakkik). Some have argued that the application of "mother" to a grandmother is metaphorical, and that the prohibition of grandmothers is established by consensus (ijma'). The accurate view is that "mother" is intended as "the origin" in all cases, for if it is used in its literal sense, it is clear; and if not, it must be judged as being intended metaphorically. Thus, grandmothers enter into the general metaphorical meaning, and the definer for the intention of that in the text is the consensus on their prohibition.

(The daughters) refers to the one born from her, or the one born from her offspring. Naming the second a "daughter" is literal, considering that "daughter" is intended as the descendant, as has been said. Thus, the text includes her literally, or metaphorically according to some or all. Those who prohibited the application of "daughter" to the descendant absolutely said: The prohibition of the daughters of children is established by consensus.

Sometimes, the prohibition of grandmothers and daughters of children is derived by the implication of the text (dalalat an-nass) which prohibits paternal and maternal aunts, and the daughters of brothers and sisters. Regarding the first, it is because siblings are the children of the grandmothers, so the prohibition of the grandmothers—who are closer—is more appropriate. Regarding the second, because the daughters of children are closer than the daughters of siblings.

The literal text indicates that it is forbidden for a man to marry his daughter born from adultery, because she is his daughter. The address is in the Arabic language, unless a transfer (naql) is proven, like the word "prayer" (salah) and its likes, so it becomes a religious transfer. On this, there is a dispute with Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah the Almighty be pleased with him), as he said: The one created from the fluid of adultery is lawful for the adulterer because she is a stranger to him; no inheritance or other rules of lineage are established for her. This is also due to the saying of the Prophet (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace): "The child is for the bed (al-walad lil-firash)," which necessitates restricting lineage to the bed.

Some Shafi'is said: She is forbidden if Prophet Isa (peace be upon him) informed him at the time of his descent that she is from his fluid. It was refuted that the Legislator severed her lineage from him as established, so there is no consideration for her being from his illicit fluid (sifah). They objected to those who believe in the prohibition by saying: You either establish her being a daughter based on reality because she was created from his fluid, or based on the ruling of the Sharia. The first is false according to their school, both positively and negatively. As for the first: if he bought a virgin, deflowered her, and kept her until she gave birth, this child is created from his fluid without doubt, yet the lineage is not established except by acknowledgement (istilhaq). As for the second: if a man from the East married a woman from the West and a child resulted from her, despite them not meeting and the barrier of the East and West between them, the lineage is established, even though it is certain that the child was not created from his fluid. The second is false by the consensus of the Muslims that there is no lineage for a child of adultery from the adulterer; if he claims it, the judge must prevent him.

The response was to choose the first part, as there is no disagreement among the linguists that the one created from a human's fluid is his daughter, whether that fluid was lawful or illicit. The partiality (juz'iyyah) is established in both cases, and it is apparent that it is the principle of the prohibition of marriage. Do you not see how it is forbidden for a woman to marry her son from adultery by consensus? The differentiation between the two issues—that the child in the second case is part of her and separated from her as a human, but not so for the daughter in the first case because she separated from him mentally—does not yield anything other than that the partiality in the second case is more apparent. As for it negating partiality in the first case, that is not true, for they apply the term "piece" (bid'ah), which necessitates partiality, to a child separated as sperm from his father. They say: "So-and-so is a piece [of someone]." Denying the existence of partiality in both cases is obstinacy. The non-establishment of inheritance, for example, between the one created from adultery fluid and the owner of the fluid, is not because of the lack of partiality or her not being his daughter in reality, but due to the consensus on that. Were it not for that, she would inherit just as a child of adultery inherits from his mother.

What was mentioned regarding the refutation of the positive case—that if he bought a virgin, deflowered her, and kept her until she gave birth, the child is certainly from his fluid yet the lineage is only established by acknowledgement—is taken from the jurists' statement regarding a slave woman if she gives birth in the possession of the master: the lineage of her child from him is not established unless he acknowledges it, and it is not enough that he had intercourse with her and she gave birth. However, in al-Hidayah and others, this is a legal ruling. As for the piety between him and Allah the Almighty, it is reported from Abu Hanifah (may Allah the Almighty be pleased with him) that if, at the time of intercourse, he did not withdraw ('azl) and protected her from the suspicions of adultery, it is incumbent upon him before Allah the Almighty to claim him by consensus, because the appearance in this case is that he is from him, and acting upon the appearance is obligatory. If he did withdraw, or did not protect her—leaving her to go and come without a reliable guardian—it is permissible for him to deny him, because this appearance (that he is from him) because of the appearance of the chastity of a Muslim woman is opposed by another appearance: that he is from someone else, due to one of the two proofs for that, which are withdrawal or lack of protection. There are two other narrations from Abu Yusuf and Muhammad mentioned in al-Mabsut. He said: From Abu Yusuf, if he had intercourse and did not seek her acquittal (istibra') after that until she brought a child, he must claim him, whether he withdrew or did not, and whether he protected her or not, to think well of her and carry her affair on righteousness, unless the contrary is proven. This is like the view of the majority, because what is apparent due to him is a condition against him until the contrary is proven. From Muhammad, he should not claim her child if he does not know that he is from him, but he should free the child. In al-Idah, he mentioned them with the wording of recommendation (istihbab): Abu Yusuf said: "I like that he claims him," and Muhammad said: "I like that he frees the child." In al-Fath, after some speech, he said: According to this, it should be that if he confessed, saying: "I was having intercourse with the intention of a child," when she brought the child, the lineage of what she brought should be established, even if he did not say, "He is my child." Because its establishment by his saying "He is my child" is based on the fact that his intercourse at the time was for the intention of a child. According to this, some of the distinguished scholars of the lesson said: It should be that if he admits he was not withdrawing and protected her, his lineage should be established without needing his claim. If we oblige him in this case to confess to him, there is no need for us to oblige him to confess so that he confesses and the lineage is established; rather, the lineage is established initially. I think there is nothing far-fetched in ruling according to the school with that. End quote.

In al-Mabsut, it states that if a long time passes, he is attributed to him, because the passage of time is evidence of his acknowledgement, because at that point there is found from him what indicates acknowledgement, such as accepting congratulations and the like. So it is like an explicit acknowledgement.

From the sum of what was mentioned, one knows what is in the objector's speech and that the opponent has the right not to concede it. However, it was mentioned in al-Bahr, refuting it: Some of the distinguished scholars thought that it is not correct to rule according to the school with this, due to the explicit statements of its scholars to the contrary, and he transmitted the text of al-Bada'i in that. Then he said: If he meant the establishment before the judge externally, they explicitly stated that a claim (da'wah) is necessary absolutely. If he meant between him and Allah the Almighty, it is explicitly stated in al-Hidayah and others that what we mentioned regarding the condition of the claim is only in judgment... to the end of what we mentioned. However, in al-Mujtaba, the freeing of a slave by an insane person is not valid, nor is his tadbir, but his istilad is valid. If this is correct, it is an exception to the ruling, and it is problematic. End quote.

According to this, it is said regarding the issue the objector mentioned: The newborn is in reality a son of the master, because he is created from his fluid, and the child of adultery is the same, and more so since acknowledgement is added to that. Allah the Almighty made the hinge of prohibition the state of being a daughter (bunnuwwah), and it is realized in our issue, so how can marriage be lawful in reality? The non-establishment of inheritance and the like, as we said, was by consensus, and the non-establishment of the claim legally, except by da'wah, is another matter behind the realization of being a daughter in reality. How much is realized in reality but not judged by, and how much is judged by but not realized in reality, as in the report of the horse which the Messenger of Allah (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) bought from the Bedouin and Khuzaymah testified for him when the Bedouin denied the sale. The speech was thoroughly investigated in the research on istilad in Fath al-Qadir and other extensive books of the people.

As for what was mentioned in refuting the inversion from the issue of the Easterner marrying a Westerner, we do not concede the certainty in it that the child is not created from his fluid, due to the established miracles of the saints (karamat al-awliya') and the services [of the jinn]. It is conceivable that the husband is a master of walking [extraordinary distances] or a jinn, and that he went to the West and had intercourse with her. Were it not for the existence of this possibility alongside the existence of marriage, the child would not be attributed to him. Do you not see how the companions said: If the boy's wife brings a child, its lineage is not established from him because it is inconceivable there, and conception is a condition; the existence of the bed alone is not enough, according to the correct view. Perhaps the consideration of this daughter-status is legally; otherwise, where the child is not created from his fluid, he is not called the husband's child in reality. They only considered that, despite the weakness of the possibility, to veil the free women and protect the child from being lost. Close to this is what Shafi'i, Malik, and Ahmad (may Allah the Almighty have mercy on them) went to in the chapter on istilad, that if a slave woman gives birth, the lineage of the child is established from the master if he acknowledges having intercourse with her even with withdrawal, just as it is established with non-withdrawal. In fact, if he had intercourse with her in her rear, the child is incumbent upon him according to Malik, and the like is from Ahmad, and it is a weakened view for the Shafi'is.

It was said: There is a distance between this issue and the issue of the Easterner marrying the Westerner like the distance between the East and the West, because the intercourse here is realized in general without the need to cross deserts and wastelands, and that is not the case there. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

(The daughters) is the plural of bint in the famous view, and it was validated that its lam is a waw like ukht. The omitted letter was restored in akhawat but not in banat, carrying each of the two plurals upon its masculine form. The masculine of banat did not have its omitted letter restored; rather, they said in it banun. The masculine of akhawat had its omitted letter restored; they said in the plural of akh: ikhwah and akhawat. Al-Danushari arranged the question, saying: "O virtuous, intelligent one, bestow a reply by which my guidance may be... The word ukht and the word bint, when they are collected as sound plurals, [one] restores the lam in ukht, but the word bint does not. So clarify my intent, with their compensating for the lam with a ta' in both, O you who are always my support." He himself (may Allah the Almighty have mercy on him) answered that by saying: "The word ukht has an inclusion in its beginning that suited the waw, so it was adorned with the return." Abu al-Baqa' said: The ta' in it is not for femininity, because the ta' of femininity does not have a quiescent letter before it, and it turns into a ha' in pause. So banat is not the plural of bint but banah, and the ba' was vocalized with kasra to draw attention to the omitted letter; al-Farra' said this. Others said: Its origin is fatha, and upon that came its plural and its masculine, which is banun. The Basrans went to this. As for ukht, the ta' in it is a substitute for the waw because it is from ikhwah. Akhawat encompasses sisters from the three directions, and so do the rest, because the name includes all.

Entering into the paternal and maternal aunts are the children of the grandfathers and grandmothers, even if they are distant. Likewise, the paternal aunt of his grandfather and her maternal aunt, and the paternal aunt of his grandmother and her maternal aunts, whether through father and mother, or father, or mother—and all of that is by consensus. In al-Khaniyyah: The aunt of an aunt through father and mother or father is likewise. As for the aunt of an aunt through mother, she is not forbidden. In al-Muhit: As for the aunt of an aunt, if the close aunt is an aunt through father and mother or through father, then the aunt of the aunt is forbidden because if the close aunt is his father's sister through father and mother or father, then her aunt is the sister of the grandfather of the father; the father's father and the father's father's sister are forbidden because she is his aunt. If the close aunt is an aunt through mother, then the aunt of the aunt is not forbidden to him because the father of the aunt is the husband of the mother of his father, so her aunt is the sister of the husband of the grandmother, the mother of the father. And the sister of the husband of the mother is not forbidden, so the sister of the husband of the grandmother is more worthy of not being forbidden. As for the maternal aunt of a maternal aunt, if the close maternal aunt is an aunt through father and mother or through mother, then her maternal aunt is forbidden to him. If the close maternal aunt is through father, then her maternal aunt is not forbidden to him because the mother of the close maternal aunt is the wife of the grandfather, the father of the mother, not the mother of his mother, so her sister is the sister of the wife of the father, and the sister of the wife of the grandfather is not forbidden to him. End quote. It is not hidden that just as it is forbidden for a man to marry whom we mentioned, it is forbidden for a woman to marry the counterpart of whom we mentioned.

It is apparent that this prohibition, which the verse indicated, was not established in all those mentioned in other religions. Yes, they mentioned that the prohibition of mothers and daughters was established even in the time of Adam (peace be upon him), and the lawfulness of marrying them was not established in any of the religions. It was said: Zarathustra, the prophet of the Magians, according to their claim, said it was lawful, and most Muslims agreed that he was a liar. The lack of harm from melted sulfur on medicines he would smear on his body... we have witnessed those who carry fire in their hands after smearing it with special medicines, and it does not harm them. At that time, it does not qualify as a miracle.

As for the lawfulness of marrying sisters, it has been said: It was permissible in the time of Adam (peace be upon him) out of necessity, and Hawa (peace be upon her) would give birth in every pregnancy to a male and a female, and the male of the second pregnancy would take the female of the first pregnancy. Some Muslims deny this and say: PageV04P252 He sent houris from Paradise, and Adam's sons (peace be upon them) married them. It is refuted that this offspring would then not be purely the children of Adam, and that is false by consensus.

(And your mothers who have nursed you and your sisters through nursing) is a conjunction to what preceded it. Nursing (rada'ah), with a fatha on the ra', is the verbal noun of rada'a, like sami'a and daraba. The like of it is rada'ah with a kasra, and rada' with a quiescent dad and a fatha, and rada' like sahab, and rada' like katif. They reported rada'a like karuma and rada'an like qital. Its dad may be changed to a ta', and rada'an like su'al. But the damma-vowel like murada'ah necessitates participation. It is said: "She nursed (ar-da'at) the woman," so she is a nursing mother (murdi') if she has a child she is nursing. If you describe her as nursing the child, you say murdi'ah. Its meaning in language is sucking the breast, and in the Sharia, it is the sucking of the nursing child from the breast of a human female in a specific time. They intended by that the arrival of milk from the woman's breast to the interior of the young child from his mouth or his nose in the upcoming period, whether sucking was found or not. They only mentioned sucking because it is the cause of the arrival, so they applied the cause and intended the effect. It was explicitly stated in al-Khaniyyah that there is no difference between sucking, nasal administration, and the like. They restricted it to a human female to exclude the male and the beast. Imam al-Bukhari—and it is the cause of his trial—was unique in saying that if a boy and a girl nursed from the breast of a sheep, the prohibition occurs between them. It was made general to include the virgin, the previously married, the living, and the dead. We restricted it to the mouth and nose to exclude what arrives through the paths: into the ear, the urethra, the ja'ifah (stab wound reaching the belly), and the ammah (head wound), and by an enema, according to the apparent narration (zahir ar-riwayah). Excluded by "arrival" is if a woman inserts her nipple into the mouth of a nursing child and does not know whether the milk entered his throat or not; marriage is not forbidden because there is doubt in the prohibitive factor. Allah the Almighty placed nursing in the position of lineage, until He called the nursing woman a mother to the nursing child, and the [nursed] nursing companion a sister. Likewise, the husband of the nursing mother is his father, her parents are his grandparents, her sister is his paternal aunt, and every child born to her from other than the nursing mother, before the nursing or after, they are his brothers and sisters through his father. Her mother is his grandmother, her sister is his maternal aunt, and every child born to her from this husband, they are his brothers and sisters through his father and mother. From those born to her from another, they are his brothers and sisters through his mother. From here, the Prophet (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) said, in what was narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim from the hadith of Aishah and Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both): "What is forbidden through lineage is forbidden through nursing."

Many researchers, such as Mawlana Shaykh al-Islam and others, went to the view that the hadith runs on its generality. As for the mother of his brother through the father, the sister of his son through the mother, the mother of the mother of his son, the mother of his paternal uncle, and the mother of his maternal uncle through the father, their prohibition is not from the direction of lineage so as to impair its generality, necessitating their lawfulness in the case of nursing, but from the direction of marital affinity (musaharah). Do you not see that the first is the one had intercourse with by his father, the second is the daughter of the one had intercourse with by his father, the third is the mother of the one had intercourse with by his father, the fourth is the one had intercourse with by his grandfather, the fifth is the one had intercourse with by his invalid grandfather? It occurred in the expression of some of them to exempt cases after citing the hadith, and he finished the exempted issues in al-Bahr to eighty-one issues, and he lengthened the speech in this place and brought forth the wonder of wonders.

The literal verse suggests that there is no difference between a little nursing—which is what is known to reach the interior—and a lot of it in prohibition. As for the report of Muslim, "One or two sucks do not prohibit," and what indicates the estimation, it is abrogated. Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) explicitly stated its abrogation; it was said to him: "The people say that [one] suck does not prohibit," so he said: "That was, then it was abrogated."

From Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him), it is reported that he said: "The affair of nursing reached the point that little and much of it prohibits." It is reported from Ibn Umar that little prohibits, and from him that it was said to him: "Ibn al-Zubayr says there is no harm in one or two sucks," and he said: "The judgment of Allah the Almighty is better than the judgment of Ibn al-Zubayr," and he recited the verse. Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him), according to what our companions reported from him, said that prohibition is not established except by five saturating sucks in five separate times, by custom. From Ahmad, there are two narrations, like our view and like his. He argued for that by what Ibn Hibban narrated in his Sahih from the hadith of al-Zubayr, that he said: The Prophet (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) said: "One or two sucks do not prohibit, nor one or two imlah (a type of suckling)." The method of arguing by that is that the masah (suck) is included in the two masat, and the imlah in the two imlahat, so its result is that the two masat do not prohibit, and the two imlahat do not prohibit. So he negated the prohibition in four, and it necessitated that it is established by five.

Ibn al-Humam objected to him that it is nothing. First, because the Shafi'i school is not prohibition by five sucks, but by five saturations in times. Second, because the masah is the action of the nursing child, and the imlah is the action of the nursing mother. The result of the meaning is that the Prophet (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) negated the two actions being prohibited from him and her. Then he investigated that what is in this narration should not be one hadith, because the imlah is not the reality of the prohibited, but its necessity from nursing, so he negated the prohibition of imlah, which is negating the prohibition of its necessity. Thus, the result of "the two imlahat do not prohibit" is only "their necessity does not prohibit," meaning the two masat. If they were gathered in one hadith, the result would be "the two masat do not prohibit, and the two masat do not prohibit," so it would be necessary that it is not correct to intend anything but the two masat, not the four. According to this, the narrator, who is al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him), must have intended to gather the words of the Prophet (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) which he heard from him at two times, as if he said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah peace be upon him) said: "One or two sucks do not prohibit," and he also said: "One or two imlahat do not prohibit."

It was said: In the method of argumentation, there is another path, which is that the hadith is a negator of what the Greatest Imam (may Allah the Almighty be pleased with him) went to, so the school of Imam Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) is established by it, due to the lack of a speaker for the separation. It was objected that the one who speaks for the separation is Abu Thawr, Ibn al-Mundhir, Dawud, and Abu 'Ubayd, and these are the imams of hadith who said: The prohibitor is three sucks. The saying of not considering their speech is within the scope of prevention because of the strength of their position relative to the position of Shafi'i's saying.

Some of his companions argued for this requirement by what Muslim narrated from Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her), who said: "It was among what was revealed in the Quran: ten information-nursing sucks prohibit, then they were abrogated by five information-nursing sucks. The Prophet (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) passed away, and it was among what is read from the Quran." In a narration, it was in a parchment under my bed, and when the Messenger of Allah (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) died, we were occupied by his death, so domestic animals entered and ate it. And by what was also narrated from Aishah: "Sahlah bint Suhayl, the wife of Abu Hudhayfah, came to the Prophet (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, I see on the face of Abu Hudhayfah [dislike] from the entry of Salim, and he is his ally.' The Prophet (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) said: 'Nurse Salim five times, and you will be prohibited to him.'" The answer is that all of that is abrogated, as Ibn Abbas explicitly stated in what passed.

It indicates the abrogation of what is in the first report of Aishah that if it were not abrogated, it would necessitate the loss of some of the Quran that was not abrogated, and Allah the Almighty has guaranteed its preservation. What is in the narration does not negate the abrogation, because it is permissible to say that she (may Allah be pleased with her) intended that it was written and not washed after [the revelation], due to the proximity, until the domestic animals entered and ate it. The saying that what was mentioned only necessitates the abrogation of the recitation, so it is permissible that the recitation is abrogated while the ruling remains—like the old man and the old woman if they commit adultery, stone them—is nothing, because the claim of the remaining of the ruling of the indicator after its abrogation needs proof. Otherwise, the origin is that the abrogation of the indicator lifts its ruling. What was looked at, were it not for what was known by the Sunnah and consensus, would not be established by it. Then, what we are certain of in the hadith of Sahlah is that the Prophet (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) did not intend to saturate Salim with five sucks in five separate times while hungry, because a man is not saturated by a ratl or two of milk; where would a human female find in her breast the amount to saturate him? This is impossible by custom. So it is apparent that the count of five in it, if it is true that it is from the report, is the sucks. Then how was it permissible to approach her nakedness with his lips? Perhaps the intended meaning is that she should milk for him an amount of five sucks, and he should drink it, as al-Qadi said. Otherwise, it is problematic. It may be said: It is abrogated from another angle because it indicates that nursing in adulthood necessitates prohibition, because Salim was at that time a man, and this was not said by any of the four imams. The duration of nursing that prohibition relates to is thirty months according to the Greatest Imam, and two years according to his two companions, and their source is very strong, and the three imams went to that. From Malik: two years and a month, and in another narration two months, and in another two years and days, and in another as long as he is in need of milk, not independent of it. Zafar said: three years. Yes, some of them said: fifteen years, and others said: forty years. Dawud said: Nursing in adulthood is also prohibiting, and there is no limit to the duration, and it is reported from Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her). When she wanted any of the men to enter upon her, she ordered her sister Umm Kulthum or some of her sister's daughters to nurse him. Muslim narrated from Umm Salamah and the rest of the wives of the Prophet (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) that they differed with Aishah in this. The pillar of those who see her opinion in this chapter is the report of Sahlah, even though the authentic reports are to the contrary. It has been validated as marfu' and mawquf: "There is no nursing except what was in two years." In al-Muwatta' and Sunan Abi Dawud from Yahya bin Sa'id, that a man asked Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, saying: "I sucked milk from my wife's breast, and it went into my stomach." Abu Musa said: "I do not see her but that she has become forbidden to you." Ibn Mas'ud said: "Look at what you are giving a verdict on for the man." Abu Musa said: "What do you say?" Ibn Mas'ud said: "There is no nursing except in two years." Abu Musa said: "Do not ask me about anything as long as this scholar is among you." In it from Ibn Umar, a man came to Umar bin al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) and said: "I had a slave girl and I was having relations with her, and my wife deliberately nursed her, so I entered upon her and she said: 'Here you go, what Allah has destined, I have nursed her.'" Umar said: "Beat her and go to your slave girl, for nursing is only the nursing of childhood." Tirmidhi narrated—and he said: an authentic hadith—from the hadith of Umm Salamah that he said (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace): "What does not prohibit from nursing is what does not reach the intestines in the breast, and it was before weaning." In Sunan Abi Dawud from the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud, he raises it: "What does not prohibit from nursing is what does not grow flesh and harden bone." Even Aishah herself (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated what contradicts her action. In the two Sahihs from her, she said: "The Messenger of Allah (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) entered upon me and there was a man with me, so he said: 'O Aishah, who is this?' I said: 'My brother through nursing.' He said: 'O Aishah, look at who your brothers are, for nursing is only from starvation.'" Her narrated report was considered without her opinion due to the appearance of her oversight in it and her reasoning not hitting the target. For this reason, it was said: It is likely that she retracted, as Abu Musa retracted when the abrogation was realized for her. Many of the scholars carried the hadith of Sahlah as being specific to her and Salim, and they also made the pardoning of approaching nakedness one of the specifics.

This, and among the strange things I came across related to this verse, is the expression from a Maqamah by the scholar al-Suyuti (may Allah have mercy on him), which he called Al-Dawaran al-Falaki 'ala Ibn al-Karaki. In it, he addresses the mentioned virtuous one with the text: "What did you do with the important question that circulated in the city, and no one answered? It is the difference between His saying: (And your mothers who have nursed you) and if it were said: 'And those who nursed you are your mothers,' where he ordered upon the first five incoming sucks, and if the second were said, one suck would have sufficed. It came to me and was driven to me, but I did not write on it, even though its answer is before my eyes and ready with me, nothing coming between me and it, to see if there is a rational man or someone with established knowledge... Would you create in it a firm answer, diversify in it the paths, and take by that a hand and arm for the claim of knowledge? It has been two years, no one has adorned it with a letter, no looker has glanced at it with an eye, and no man of taste has deposited it with taste. If I wished, I would have written on it several compositions and lined in it five works: simple, precious; middle, dense; summary, concise; a poem with embroidery; and a Maqamah composition as if it were pure gold." End of his speech.

I say: Perhaps the difference is that when He, the Almighty, mentioned (your mothers) in this verse joined to what preceded in the previous verse, and in it is the prohibition of mothers, the mind remained waiting for the statement of the differentiator between these mothers and those mothers. So He, the Almighty, came with His saying: (who have nursed you) as a statement for that, warding off the illusion of repetition. So the nursing constraint, which is the reality of the relative clause, was taken care of with the most complete care. Among what results from this care is considering it wherever it is noticed. It was noticed in the verse five times: the first when He came with it as a verb, the second when it was attributed to the actor, meaning the pronoun of the women, the third when it related to the object, meaning the pronoun of the addressed, the fourth when it was made part of the sentence that is the relative clause, and the fifth when (allati) was made an adjective for (your mothers), because its descriptiveness to it is based on the relative clause without doubt. So these are five notices for nursing in this structure, pointing to that which obtains motherhood, [which is] five sucks. This is one of the secrets of choosing this structure with the possibility of other structures, perhaps some of which are more concise than it. Often, in the Quran, there occur structures and expressions by which point to realistic matters between them and what is in those expressions is a connection, like what occurred in His saying: (And they have rights similar to those against them, according to what is fair), from the ihtibak (interlocking) which points to the compatibility between the spouses; and what occurred in His saying: (Or if he is unable to dictate, then let his guardian dictate), from the assimilation in yumil which points to the state of the actor, who is the mute whose tongue is tied in many of the sayings; and what occurred in His saying: (Each in an orbit) from the lack of impossibility by inversion, which points to the sphericity of the orbits in an opinion; and others which are uncountable in abundance.

This is not from the door of argumentation, but from the door of the indication that strengthens it. Do you not see that no one who went to the requirement of five [sucks] argued by this verse? Rather, they argued for it by the arrival of the five in the reports. To that points the expression of the Great Scholar al-Suyuti (may Allah have mercy on him). This indication is missing in the assumed saying, meaning: "And those who nursed you are your mothers," because the conjunction in it does not suggest repetition due to the lack of its counterpart preceding it, so the mind does not look to what is mentioned after, as it looked to what was mentioned before. So there is no reason to consider it wherever it is noticed, as it was like that there. Rather, considering it once is enough, and it is the lowest with which the essence is realized, especially since it was mentioned after (your mothers) as a substitute, and the substitute, as they said, is the intended one in the relation with the intention of repeating the عامل ('amil) that is useful for establishing the meaning of the speech and emphasizing it. This emphasis also indicates the unity of nursing, because prohibition by one suck is something that is almost excluded, so it needs to be emphasized, unlike the multiple sucks. I have seen in some copies of Sharh Sahih Muslim by Imam al-Nawawi, after mentioning the argument of Imam Malik (may Allah the Almighty be pleased with him) for the claim of the establishment of prohibition by one suck with His saying: (And your mothers who have nursed you), as he did not mention a number, what its text is: "The companions of Shafi'i objected to the Malikis and said: The indication would only have been obtained for you if the verse were: 'And those who nursed you are your mothers.'" End quote. He did not explicitly state, may Allah have mercy on him, that the verse which the Malikis argued by is indicative of five, but he limited himself to that the indication of the one is not obtained by it. He intended that what we indicated from the strong indication to plurality refuses to carry the essence on the least which it is realized in. In some copies of that explanation: "The companions of Shafi'i objected to the Malikis and said: The indication would only have been obtained for you if the verse were: 'And those who nursed you [and] your mothers,' with a waw between (nursed you) and (your mothers)." It is apparent that it is an error from the scribe, and committing to directing it is coercion that we saw leaving it is a profit.

This is what appeared to my limited vision and my sluggish thought. I asked gently about this difference from a group of the scholars of my time, and I reviewed for the explanation of that text all the virtuous ones contained in the margins of my Egypt. I did not see anyone who uttered a word, nor anyone who claimed knowledge in solving that problem, even though among them are those to whom necks bowed and whose virtues covered the horizons. I did not see it from manliness that I wait for them until the trumpet is blown, or wait for the daughters of their thoughts until the sterile mule gives birth. So I wrote what you see, and I am not certain that it is the best and most appropriate. So contemplate, for the path of the mind has vastness, and the truth is more worthy to be followed.

(And the mothers of your wives) is a commencement in the statement of the forbidden through marital affinity after the statement of the forbidden through nursing, which has a tie like the tie of lineage. The meaning of "wives" is the married ones absolutely, whether they were had intercourse with or not, and it is agreed upon by the four imams. However, it is a condition that the marriage be valid. As for if it were invalid, the mother is not forbidden unless he had intercourse with her daughter. al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan and others extracted from the path of 'Amr bin Shu'ayb from his father from his grandfather from the Prophet (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) he said: "If a man marries a woman, it is not lawful for him to marry her mother, whether he had intercourse with the daughter or did not. And if he married the mother and did not have intercourse with her, then he divorced her, if he wishes he may marry the daughter." To this went a group of the companions and the followers. From Ibn Abbas, there are two narrations, as Ibn al-Mundhir extracted from him that he said: "The wives are ambiguous; if a man divorces his wife before he has intercourse with her or she dies, her mother is not lawful for him." He also extracted from Muslim bin 'Uwaymir that he said: "I married a woman and did not have intercourse with her until my uncle passed away leaving her mother, so I asked Ibn Abbas and he said: 'Marry her mother.'" From Zayd bin Thabit, there are also two narrations, as Malik extracted from him that he was asked about a man who married a woman and parted with her before he touched her, is her mother lawful for him? He said: "No, the mother is ambiguous, there is no condition in it; the condition is only in the stepdaughters."

Ibn Jarir and a group extracted from him that he used to say: "If she dies while with him and he takes her inheritance, he disliked that he should marry her mother. And if he divorces her before he has intercourse with her, there is no harm to marry her mother." It was narrated from Ibn Mas'ud that he used to give a verdict for the lawfulness of the mother of the wife if he had not had intercourse with her daughter, then he retracted from that, as Malik extracted from him that he was asked in Kufa about marrying the mother after the daughter if the daughter was not touched, and he granted a concession in that. Then he came to Medina and was asked about that, and he was informed that it is not as he said and that the condition is in the stepdaughters. So he returned to Kufa and did not reach his house until he came to the man whom he gave that verdict to, and he ordered him to part with her.

Ibn Abi Hatim extracted from Ali (may Allah the Almighty honor his face) that he was asked about the man who marries a woman then divorces her or she dies before he has intercourse with her, is her mother lawful for him? He said: "She is in the position of the stepdaughter." To this went Ibn al-Zubayr and Mujahid. In the word "mothers" enter the grandmothers from the father and mother, even if they are distant. If the man's wife is a slave, her mother is not forbidden except by intercourse or its stimulants, because the word "wives" if attributed to husbands, the intended is the free women, as in zihar and ila'. It was recited: (And the mothers of your wives whom you have had intercourse with).

(And your stepdaughters who are in your guardianship) Raba'ib is the plural of rabibah, and rabb and rabba have the same meaning. Rabib is fa'il in the meaning of maf'ul (passive), and when it was attached to the frozen nouns, the attachment of the ta' to it became permissible; otherwise, fa'il in the meaning of maf'ul is the same for the masculine and the feminine. This is the meaning of their saying: the ta' is for transferring to noun-hood. The rabib is the child of the woman from another; he was named that because he usually raises (yarubbu) him as he raises his own child. The hujur (guardianship) is the plural of hijr with fatha and kasra, and in language, it is the embrace of a person—meaning what is below his armpit to the rib. They said: "So-and-so is in the guardianship (hijr) of so-and-so," meaning in his shelter and protection, and that is the intended meaning in the verse. Describing the stepdaughters as being in the guardianships is brought out in the way of the common and the custom, since usually, the daughter is with the mother at the husband's. Its benefit is the strengthening of the cause of prohibition, just as it is the point in mentioning them by the name of stepdaughters instead of daughters of wives. It was said: That was mentioned for the defamation of them, like (manifold doubled) in His saying: (Do not consume usury, [doubled] manifold). Were it not for what was mentioned, the permissibility would have been established upon its negation by the indication of the word in other than the place of pronunciation, according to those who consider the concept of contradiction (mafhum al-mukhalafah), and by returning to the origin, which is permissibility, according to those who do not consider the concept, because the exit from it to prohibition is restricted by a constraint. So if the constraint is negated, it returns to the origin, not by the indication of the word. It was narrated from Ali (may Allah the Almighty honor his face) that he says in the lawfulness of the stepdaughter if she was not in the guardianship. 'Abd al-Razzaq and Ibn Abi Hatim extracted with an authentic chain from Malik bin Aws that he said: "I had a wife and she died, and she had given birth to me, so I found upon her, then Ali bin Abi Talib (may Allah the Almighty honor his face) met me and said: 'What is with you?' I said: 'The woman died.' He said: 'Did she have a daughter?' I said: 'Yes, and she is in Ta'if.' He said: 'Did she use to be in your guardianship?' I said: 'No.' He said: 'Marry her.' I said: 'So where is His saying: (And your stepdaughters who are in your guardianship)?' He said: 'She was not in your guardianship; that is only if she was in your guardianship.'" To this went Dawud, and the first is the view of the majority, and Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) returned to it. Entering into the prohibition are the daughters of the stepdaughter and stepson even if they are distant, because the name includes them, unlike the sons and fathers, because it is a special name for them. For this reason, it was permissible to marry the mother of the son's wife and her daughter, and it was permissible for the son to marry the mother of the father's wife and her daughter.

Some researchers said: The establishment of the prohibition of those mentioned is by consensus (from your wives whom you have had intercourse with). The prepositional phrase is connected to an omitted [part] that occurred as a state (hal) from (your stepdaughters) or from their pronoun hidden in the container, meaning: those who settled in your guardianships, being from your wives, etc. And (those whom you have had intercourse with) is an adjective for the wives mentioned before it, and it is for restriction, because the stepdaughter of a wife who was not had intercourse with is not forbidden. It is not permissible for the prepositional phrase to be a state from the mothers also, or from what she was attributed to, necessarily, for the state-hood from your stepdaughters or from their pronoun necessitates (min) being initial, and its state-hood from mothers or (from your wives) demands it being explanatory. The claim of it being contact-based, as in His saying (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace): "You are to me in the position of Harun to Musa," and His saying: "If you attempt wickedness in a lion, I am not of you and you are not of me," which is a meaning that organizes initial-ness and explanation—so it includes the connection of mothers to wives because they are parents, and the stepdaughters because they are born—or making the relative noun an adjective for wives, even with the difference of their operators, because the wives to whom the mothers are attributed is genitive by the addition, and the genitive by (min) with them is very distant. Rather, the arena of revelation should be purified from it. As for the recitation, it is weak in narration, and upon the assessment of correctness, it is carried upon abrogation as Shaykh al-Islam said. The ba' in (bihinna) is for transitive, and in it is the meaning of accompaniment, or it is in the meaning of "with," meaning: you entered with them into the veil, and it is a metonymy for intercourse, like "built upon her" (bana 'alayha) and "struck the veil upon her" (daraba 'alayha al-hijab). Many people say: "Built with her" (bana biha), and al-Hariri thought they were mistaken, and it is a mistake. Touching and its likes are in the ruling of intercourse according to the Greatest Imam (may Allah the Almighty be pleased with him). Some of the virtuous said: It was objected that what he went to has no scope, because the explicit meaning of the verse is not intended certainly, but what is famous from its metonymic meaning. So what he said, if it were established by analogy, it is contrary to the explicit meaning of the condition, and if the river of Allah the Almighty comes, the river of Ma'qil is voided. If it were established by hadith, and it is not famous, it would not agree with his principles. It is repelled that it is from the explicit text, because the ba' of attachment is explicit in it, because it is said: "Entered with her" (dakhala biha) if he held her and brought her into the house. If you say: Grant that the metonymy does not require in it a barrier to intending the reality, but its intention is necessary, as was investigated in al-Ma'ani, so there is no indication of the verse for it. The answer is: It was not necessary that its intention be [required], but there is no obstacle to it upon the existence of a hint for its intention. The reports are sufficient as a hint. Among them is what was narrated from the path of Ibn Wahb from Abu Ayyub from Ibn Jurayj that the Prophet (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) said about the one who marries a woman and pinches her, and does not increase that: "He does not marry her daughter." It is mursal and broken, except that this does not damage according to us if the men are trustworthy. For this reason, they included it in the meaning of the arrangement. It was narrated from Ibn Umar that he said: "If a man has intercourse with a woman, or kisses her, or touches her with desire, or looks at her private part with desire, she is forbidden to his father and his son, and her mother and daughter are forbidden to him."

If you say: Grant that touching enters into its explicit [meaning], so how does its counterpart enter into it? The answer: It is included by the indication of the text. What was mentioned from the contradiction of the explicit meaning of the condition is built upon the consideration of the concept of the condition, and we do not say with it, even though it is not general. Even upon its assessment of generality, it is not far-fetched to speak of specialization. So contemplate. Adultery in the private part is forbidden according to us, so whoever commits adultery with a woman, her daughter is forbidden to him, contrary to Shafi'i, where he went to the view that adultery does not necessitate the prohibition of marital affinity because it is a blessing, so it is not attained by a forbidden [act]. This is also due to His saying (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace): "The forbidden does not prohibit the lawful." To us, intercourse is a cause for the child, so prohibition relates to it by analogy to lawful intercourse. The description of lawfulness has no entry into the cause (manat). For the intercourse of a common slave woman, the slave girl of the son, the muktabah, the one who is muzahar from, his Magian slave girl, the menstruating, the postpartum, and the intercourse of the muhrim and the fasting [person], it is all forbidden, and the mentioned prohibition is established by it. That indicates that what is considered in the origin is the essence of intercourse without looking to it being lawful or forbidden.

It was narrated that a man said: "O Messenger of Allah, I committed adultery with a woman in the pre-Islamic period, should I marry her daughter?" The Prophet (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) said: "I do not see that, and it is not suitable that a woman is married if one looks from her daughter at what one looks at from her." This, even if it has irsal and inqita', we brought it in opposition to their report. The hadith scholars have attacked it, and Abd al-Haq mentioned it from Ibn Umar, then said: "In its chain is Ishaq bin Abi Farwah, and he is abandoned." Even if it were not run upon its appearance... have you seen if he urinates or pours wine in a small amount of water, would it not be forbidden, even though its use is forbidden? So it must be that the intended meaning from it is that the forbidden does not prohibit by considering it as forbidden. At that point, we say according to its requirement, as we did not say with the establishment of adultery [as] the prohibition of marital affinity by considering it as adultery, rather by considering it as intercourse. The author of al-Hidayah answered their saying in the reasoning that adultery does not necessitate the prohibition of marital affinity because it is a blessing, so it is not attained by a forbidden [act], that intercourse prohibits from the side that it is a cause for a child, not from the side of its essence, nor from the side that it is adultery. In Fath al-Qadir, that this saying is a fallacy, for the blessing is not the prohibition as it is prohibition because it is a narrowing, and for this reason, the lawfulness widened for the Messenger of Allah (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) as a blessing from Allah the Almighty. Rather, it is from the side that it results in marital affinity. The reality of the blessing is marital affinity, because it is what makes the stranger a relative, an arm and a helper, what concerns you concerns him. There is no marital affinity by adultery. So the relative, the husband of the daughter for example, not the one who committed adultery with the person's daughter. So the marital affinity and its benefit are negated, as the human recoils from the adulterer with his daughter, so he does not recognize him, rather he is hostile to him, so how would he benefit from him? The transmitted [reports] are equivalent, so the reference is to analogy, and we have clarified in it the cancellation of an additional description over it being a description. The completion of the speech is in the extensive books of our imams.

(But if you have not) meaning in what preceded (had intercourse with them) meaning with those wives, the mothers of the stepdaughters (there is no sin) meaning no blame (upon you) absolutely in marrying their daughters if you divorced them or they died. This is an explicit statement of what was implied by what preceded it, and in it is the repulsion of the illusion that the constraint of intercourse is like the constraint of being in the guardianships. The first fa' is for ordering what is after it upon what is before it, in the style of what passed. In the limitation in the statement of the negation of prohibition to the negation of intercourse is an indication that what is considered in the prohibition is only the intercourse, not the stepdaughters being in the guardianships. Otherwise, it would have been said: "But if you have not had intercourse with them and they are not in your guardianships," or "But if you have not had intercourse with them or they are not in your guardianships," running upon the custom in attributing the negation of the ruling to the negation of the complete compound cause or one of its two parts—the circle. Even if it is correct to attribute it to the negation of its specified part, it is contrary to the continuous usage.

(And the wives of your sons) meaning their wives, the plural of halilah. The wife was named that because she settles (tahillu) with her husband in one bed, or because she is lawful (tahillu) with him wherever he was, so it is fa'ilah in the meaning of fa'ilah (active). Likewise, it is said for the husband halil. It was said: their derivation is from the hall because each of them settles the lower garment of his companion. It was said: from the hall because each of them is lawful (halal) for his companion, so it is fa'ilah in the meaning of maf'ulah (passive). The ta' in halilah is for running it in the stream of frozen nouns. If fa'ilah was made in the side of the husband in the meaning of fa'il and in the side of the wife in the meaning of maf'ul, there would be a kind of delicacy in it which is not hidden. The verse is apparent in the prohibition of the wife only. As for the prohibition of the one the son had intercourse with who is not a wife, it is by another proof. Ibn al-Humam said: If they considered the halilah from the settling of the bed or the settling of the lower garment, it includes the one had intercourse with by right of possession, or suspicion, or adultery. So everything is forbidden to the fathers, and it is the ruling established according to us. It does not include the one contracted for the son or his sons, even if they are distant, before intercourse. The assumption is that by mere contract, she is forbidden to the fathers, and that is by considering it from the hall with kasra. The proof has been established for the prohibition of the one committed adultery with for the son to the father, so it must be considered in the more general of the hall and the hall. Then the sons are intended as descendants, so the wife of the distant son is forbidden to the higher grandfather. Likewise, the son of the daughter, even if he is distant. The apparent from the speech of the linguists is that the halilah is the wife as we indicated. Some of them chose the intention of the more general meaning that includes the right of possession, so that the secret in expressing it here instead of "husbands" or "wives" is that the man might think that the owned slave of his son is the owned slave of his son, based on the fact that the child and his wealth are for his father, so he does not mind having intercourse with her. And if the son had intercourse with her, they were alerted to her prohibition by a title that is true for her and for the wife, [like] the truth of the general on its individuals, to point to that there is no difference between them. So contemplate. The ruling of those touched and their likes is the ruling of those had intercourse with by the sons.

(Who are from your loins) is an adjective for the sons, and it was mentioned to drop the wife of the adopted son. From 'Ata', it was revealed when the Prophet (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) married the wife of Zayd bin Harithah (may Allah the Almighty be pleased with him), so the polytheists said that in it. The purpose of that is not dropping the wife of the son through nursing, for she is also forbidden like the wife of the son through lineage. Some of them mentioned in it a dispute with Shafi'i (may Allah the Almighty be pleased with him), and the famous thing from him is agreement in that.

(And that you gather between two sisters) is in the position of genitive, joined to what preceded it from the forbidden. The meaning is gathering them in marriage, not in the right of possession. There is no difference between them being sisters through lineage or nursing, until they said: "If he had two nursing wives, a stranger woman nursed them, their marriage is voided."

It was narrated from Shafi'i that only the marriage of the second is voided, and gathering between two sisters in the right of possession is not forbidden. Yes, gathering them in intercourse by right of possession is attached to it by the path of indication because of their unity in the orbit, so it is forbidden according to the majority. Upon it are Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Umar, and Ammar bin Yasir (may Allah be pleased with them).

The narration differed from Ali (may Allah the Almighty honor his face), so al-Bayhaqi and Ibn Abi Shaybah extracted from him that he was asked about a man who had two slave girls, sisters; he had intercourse with one of them then wanted to have intercourse with the other. He said: "No, until he removes her from his possession." And they extracted from the path of Abu Salih from him that he said: "Regarding the two sisters owned: a verse made them lawful and a verse forbade them, and I do not order and I do not forbid, and I do not make lawful and I do not make forbidden, and I do not do it, nor my family." 'Abd bin Humayd narrated from Ibn Abbas that gathering is what there is no harm in. It was narrated like it from Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them). From Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "I do not like to authorize gathering," and he forbade the questioner from it. Some of them claimed that the apparent is that the one who spoke for lawfulness from the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) retracted to the view of the majority. If we said by the lack of retraction, the subsequent consensus lifts the previous disagreement. It is only completed if the disagreement of the people of the appearance is not counted. Upon the assessment of its lack, the prohibitor is the one who chooses [precedence] upon opposition. If he married the sister of his slave girl who was had intercourse with, the marriage is valid, and having intercourse with one of them is forbidden until he forbids the one had intercourse with to himself by one of the causes. At that point, he has intercourse with the married one because of the lack of gathering, like sale—all of it or some of it—and valid marriage, and a gift with delivery, and freeing—all of it or some of it—and writing. If he married the sister in an invalid marriage, his slave girl who was had intercourse with is not forbidden to him unless he had intercourse with the married woman. At that point, the one had intercourse with is forbidden due to the existence of gathering between them in reality. The ihram, menstruation, postpartum, and fasting do not affect it, and likewise the pledge, leasing, and tadbir, because her private part is not forbidden by these causes. If the one had intercourse with returned to his possession after the removal, whether it was by dissolution or a new purchase, having intercourse with one of them is not lawful until he forbids the slave girl to himself by a cause as it was first. The apparent of their saying: "Having intercourse is not lawful until he forbids" is that the marriage is valid, and they have explicitly stated that and reasoned it by its issuance from its people added to its place. It was objected that the married woman is had intercourse with legally, by their admission, so by marriage, he becomes a gatherer of intercourse legally, and it is false. From here, some Malikis went to the lack of validity. The answer was that the necessity of gathering between them by intercourse legally is not necessary, because it is in his hand to remove it, so it does not harm the validity. It is forbidden from having intercourse after it because of its standing at that time. Attributing the prohibition to gathering, not to the second, by saying: "And your wives' sisters," is for guarding from the benefit of eternal prohibition as in the previous forbidden, and for it being far from the benefit of the prohibition of gathering by way of accompaniment. This gathering between the woman and her aunt or her maternal aunt and their likes is shared in this, for the orbit of the prohibition of gathering between two sisters is its leading—contrary to what is in al-Mabsut—to cutting what Allah the Almighty ordered to be joined, as is indicated by what al-Tabarani extracted from His saying (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace): "For if you do that, you cut your kinship ties." And what Abu Dawud narrated in his Marasil from Isa bin Talhah, he said: "The Prophet (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) forbade that a woman is married [to a man] while her relative is his [wife], for fear of severance." That is realized in the gathering between those whom we mentioned, rather [it is] more appropriate, for the paternal and maternal aunts are in the position of the mother. So His saying (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace), exaggerating in the statement of prohibition: "A woman should not be married [to a man] upon her paternal aunt, nor upon her maternal aunt, nor upon her brother's daughter, nor upon her sister's daughter," is from the door of the statement of explanation, not the statement of expression, according to some researchers.

Others said: The hadith is famous, for it was established in the two Sahihs of Muslim and Ibn Hibban, and it was narrated by Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and al-Nasa'i, and the first generation received it with acceptance from the companions and the followers. It was narrated by the huge group, among them Abu Hurayrah, Jabir, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Ibn Mas'ud, and Abu Sa'id al-Khudri. So it is permissible to specialize the generality of His saying: (And it is lawful for you what is beyond that). Rather, if it were from the single reports (ahad), it would be permissible to specialize by it, not waiting for it being famous. Ibn al-Humam said: The apparent is that there is no escape from claiming fame because the hadith's position is abrogation, not specialization, and he clarified it in Fath al-Qadir, so return to it. (Except what has passed) is a disjointed exception, and intending exaggeration and emphasis here is not suitable for the tailing with His saying, the Almighty: (Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful). For forgiveness and mercy do not suit the emphasis of prohibition.

The intended meaning from what has passed is what went before the prohibition, for they used to gather the two sisters in it. Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi—and he considered it hasan—and Ibn Majah extracted from Fayruz al-Daylami that he was overtaken by Islam and under him were two sisters, so the Prophet (may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him peace) said to him: "Divorce which of them you wish." 'Ata' and al-Suddi said: Its meaning is except what was from Ya'qub (peace be upon him) when he gathered between the two sisters, Liyyah, the mother of Yahuda, and Rahil, the mother of Yusuf (peace be upon him). The tailing does not help it, for what Ya'qub (peace be upon him) did, if it were true, was lawful in his Sharia.

From Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), the people of the pre-Islamic period used to forbid what Allah the Almighty forbade, except the wife of the father and gathering between two sisters. It was narrated like it from Muhammad bin al-Hasan, and that he said: Do you not see that He followed the prohibition of each of them with His saying, the Almighty: (Except what has passed). This is as Shaykh al-Islam said, pointing to the condition of the exception in both of them upon one path, and their difference [in meaning] refuses it.

The fourth part of the interpretation of Ruh al-Ma'ani has been completed, and the fifth part follows it. | 5