An Islamic fatwa: Adult men could breast-feed from female work colleagues!

This is getting rather ridiculous, whatever does it matter to you whether Muslim women can create a mothers relationship with adult men or not?

This is going to be my final post where I comment over the primary sources insha Allah. Islam laws are what our classical Imams said they are, not what a modern scholar or a Muslim layman understands from the primary sources (what to say of a self proclaimed Kafir).

To proceed, this is one of those subjects regarding which there was some confusion in years immediately following the Prophet's passing. But later all the Sunni Jurist agreed that the rida'ah based relationship is only formed during infancy.

Here are extracts from classical fiqh books representing the four standard schools of thought of the Sunni juristical opinion.

Hanafi Fiqh

In al-Ikhtiyar vol 4 page 118, Imam al-Mosuli says;

"When the period is over, there is no regard for the milk-drinking that takes place afterwards due to his (the Prophet's) statement, "There is no rada'ah after the weaning" Meaning that it's ruling does not remain"

and then he said:

"The taboo relationship from milk-drinking is that which occurs during the period"

Maliki Fiqh

Imam Abul Barakat Ahmad al-Dardir said in al-Sharh al-Kabir vol 2 page 503

"And it is apparent that the milk-drinking that occurs after the two month and the two years have passed does not create the taboo relationship even if it occurs one day after that"


Shafi'i Fiqh

Imam al-Shirazi says in al-Muhadhab vol 2 page 199

"An the taboo relationship due to rada'ah does not occur if the milk is drunk after two years due to the statment of the Lord Most High, Mothers shall nurse their infants two full years for the one who wishes to complete the suckling (The Quran 2:233). This shows that He has declared the two years to be the end of rada'ah."


And Imam Nawawi says in Minhaj al-Talibin page 117:

"And the requirements for forming the taboo relationship is that the one being suckled should be living, and should not have reached two years (in age)"

Hanbali Fiqh

Imam al-Bahuti says in al-Rawd al-Murabba’:

"So when the woman suckles a child, less than two years old, the suckling woman becomes (like) his mother in (the matter of) forbiddance of marriage"

Did I not say that isolated opinions are discounted?

Don't you find it odd that from the millenia of Islamic scolarship he could find only these few names who supposedly held this opinion? From among these Allama Ibn Hazm is well known as an extreme literalist, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah is notorious for his odd positions, Shaykh Ibn Qayyim is Ibn Taymiyyah's student so his name is redundant and Qadi Shawkani was a Zaydi Shi'ah so he couldn't care less about what the orthodox Sunni Imams said.

Because of the weight of evidence against it in the Quran and Sunnah
Because of the majority opinion of the Prophet's companions
Because of the agreement of orthodox Jurists
Because my source of Islamic knowledge isn't "answering islam", Memri, "jihadwatch" etc. or literal english translations of the primary texts.

Which doesn't say what you claimed earlier: "why Khadija then asked her brother’s daughters to do the suckling for her so men can see and talk to her?"

This narration itself shows that the majority opinion was that it was a dispensation.

When the general agreement of the orthodox jurist is known and it is known that they regard the one incident as a dispensation, it is not much of stretch then to assume that had there been another such incident that would have been considered a dispensation as well.

Thank you for your consideration, but I think orthodox fuqaha were in a better position to know what the way of the Messenger really is than you.

No he is not, he accepts that he was Islamically wrong, "[the norms accepted] by the public" is a wrong translation by a mischievous Israeli propogandist who is ignorant of the technical Arabic terms used by the Islamic scholars. When Dr. Attiya apologizes for contradicting the "jamhoor" he doesn't mean "the public", he means the majority of Sunni Jurists.

 

So if his Brother's wife (sister-in-law) lets him breast feed, he can enter the apartment and can be alone with her??

That must be a hell lot of lucky brother..
I'd do the boob sucking AKA breast feeding full time until my bro comes in, to avoid any conflict....

 

I agree it’s getting ridiculous; the guy apologized, so the matter can rest in peace.


Well yes it does matter to me because all of my family are Muslims. Also officially, I’m still a Muslim (but I consider myself Kafer).

I was presenting his side of the argument which contradicted classical fiqh. But you know there is something called Al-Kiyyas (القياس) so the guy was doing just that.

To support the view of Attiya there was also another fatwa from Islamonline.net written well before this scandle:

That presented the suckling of a grown-up person as a possible solution:

Then the fatwa ended up saying that is up to the person to decide to suckle or not to suckle

Read it in full

So you cannot dismiss other opinions of high authority, they are not isolated as you say. Just because you think that only classical Imams had the last say.

It does say it doesn’t it: "A'isha umm al-muminin took that as a precedent for whatever men she wanted to be able to come to see her. She ordered her sister, Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr as-Siddiq and the daughters of her brother to give milk to whichever men she wanted to be able to come in to see her."

in Arabic.
‏ فَأَخَذَتْ بِذَلِكَ عَائِشَةُ أُمُّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فِيمَنْ كَانَتْ تُحِبُّ أَنْ يَدْخُلَ عَلَيْهَا مِنَ الرِّجَالِ فَكَانَتْ تَأْمُرُ أُخْتَهَا أُمَّ كُلْثُومٍ بِنْتَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّيقِ وَبَنَاتِ أَخِيهَا أَنْ يُرْضِعْنَ مَنْ أَحَبَّتْ أَنْ يَدْخُلَ عَلَيْهَا مِنَ الرِّجَالِ وَأَبَى

Sure the other didn’t agree but Aisha didn't mind:

Don't you see in Allaah's Messenger a model for you?

The response is in Aisha's own words:

Here is the original Arabic translation:Sahih Muslim

The whole idea of suckling grownups is a mockery, and it appeared to have been made by the prophet to workaround his own and already established rules.

.

Dispensation or not, how could anyone in this or other matters model their moral values on the prophet of Islam?.

I agree with you on this, it was a wrong translation by a mischievous propogandist. "jamhoor” doesn’t mean public opinion. So I will never use memri.org as a source.

 

what is this topic doing on this forum?

 

Yes by another modern scholar.

No it did not, it concerns a five year old orphan boy.

He still recommends that she abstain from doing this and follow the majority opinion.

Shadh or odd opinions are their very definition those that contradict the majority opinion..

Umm al Mu'mineen A'ishah is different from Umm al Mu'mineen Khadijah, who died during the Prophet's life.

That merely shows how stongly she believed she was right. However most other people who were just as strong in following the Prophet believed otherwise and the opinion of the orthodox jurists lies with them.

The concept of of a praiseworthy artifice (Heelah) to perform a difficult matter of the shari'ah is well established in the deen (for example see tafseer of surah saad ayah 44)

Good and evil is known from God and not independantly of God. Evil is disobedience of God and good is obedience of God.

 

This has nothing to do with breasts, sucking breasts or looking at breasts, it's about drinking milk. I've said this before in post number 15 but maybe that was too complex for you to understand so i'll repeat it in simpler words this time.

This religious edict concerned a man who is forced to live/work with an unrelated woman (meaning one he can marry or could have married had she not married someone else or could marry if she got divourced/her husband died). Due to being unrelated he cannot socialize with her, be alone in a room with her, shake her hand or even look at her face what say of looking at or sucking her bare breasts. This makes life difficult so to the proposed solution was that the man drinks her breast milk, this makes her his mother, he can never marry her, he can now socialize with her, be alone in a room with her, shake her hand and look at her face.

 

I get it! you seem to have a problem with modern scholars. That’s fine.

But if you want I can dig out some dirt from your respected classical scholars, relating to various topics that would embarrass you for sure i.e. Life of the prophet, jihad, marriage, slavery, discrimination,Taqiya, scientific errors, etc…

I am not sure you are reading this well but the question was regarding a 15-year old girl:
و هي الان قد بلغت خمسة عشر عاما means "And she has now reached 15 of age"

وإن أردت أن تستفيد بما أفتت به أم المؤمنين عائشة واختاره ابن تيمية ورجحه فلك ذلك
"And if you want, you could take advantage from what Aisha has edicted and what Ibn Taymiyya has chosen."

I see this as giving a choice, don’t you?

Sorry, I was thinking of Aisha and not Khadija. Khadija had nothing to do with this.

And so you claim! Since I don't believe in a personal god, to me Good and evil have nothing to do with god, it's pure human.

 

But then you'd have to give your "godless" reason why jihad, polygyny, slavery etc. are wrong and why the western liberal norms are the standards through which every other system of morality shold be judged.

My mistake

Yes but even this person recommended she follow the jamhoor.

 

Is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights not good for you as a standard?

Never mind Human rights charter.

Would you accept this rule then: Treat others only in ways that you're willing to be treated, in the same exact situation.

 

When this so-called "Universal Declaration" was issued, were the religious heads of all religions consulted? If not, was it not rather pompous to term it the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"?

Also in 1948 much of the third world was still under the colonial rule of the west. Despite the grandness of their language United Nations was, and is a baised setup designed to forward the interests and ideologies of the west.

Rule? What rule? Man just a highly evolved animal and like all animals, his sole purpose in life is to increase his "fitness" i.e screw around and leave as many decendants as possible before finally and irrevocably kicking the bucket.

 

This forum is called Politics & Religion

 

In 1993 in the WORLD CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS in Vienna. The whole world including most if not all Islamic countries have reaffirmed “their commitment to the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

In 2006 a resolution was adopted by the General Assembly on Human Rights Reaffirming the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the above Vienna Declaration and Programme.


I can’t think of any Independent Islamic state that is not a signatory member.

I guess, you are just angry!

 

I'm not really interested in the Islamic rights & wrongs & workaround of rules etc as i'm an Atheist but i will answer this question for you (well not me you will answer yourself):

Lets take the easy one; would you like to be a slave? no?, you would find that wrong. The easiest way to determine right & wrong is this; would you like to be in the position of the person on the receiving end.

 

Thanks, it couldn’t have been easier for him to understand.

I told him, this is the basic principle that no one should find difficult to comprehend to “Treat others only in ways that you're willing to be treated”, but he wasn’t happy either. I guess in his mind, only Islam has the supreme version of justice. Right and wrong are defined by Allah and Allah only.

 

/me walks up to the woman next to him and starts sucking her boob

doesn't sound like it is going to go down to well

 

As an atheist you're utilizing a rule expounded by many great thinkers and prophets throughout the ages, none of whom were atheists. It is a rule fully grounded in religion, belief in God and accountability in afterlife, without these beliefs such a rule has no meaning. Since you're one of these people:

you oughtn't have any qualms about buying or selling humans, unless for some valid reason you're against buying and selling animals as well.

So let's have your godless reason for rejection of slavery.

 

skibladner your just simply wrong i don't care if any of your "prophets" or other "prophets" claimed such, that is of no interest to me.

Maybe Mohammed wasn't the "last prophet"?

That's plain rubbish & you know, to understand someone elses feelings has nothing to do with afterlife, it may be to you

Common sense is greater than any godly reason, period.

 

this thread was more interesting when i thought i could get commitment free boobies

 

you still can, if you become muslim! Of course, those women have to cover themselves at all times, because they are such a temptation to men....sounds to me like islam is full of perverts, which is why Gworld fits in so well....

 

The original posting brings one phrase to mind... that oh so uttered example of clear understanding and yet disbelief and utter contempt mixed with shock, and awe at the stupidity of the situation. A phrase millions of Americans know, and utter much... a supreme and most exacting three worded sentence... and here it is, in all of its astounding glory with capitalized emphasis:

WHAT THE F**K?

Yeah, it's like that. As for my godless interpretation of why slavery is wrong is simple. We evolved past that, and are humans. Therefore, although we are animals, we can fully comprehend the situations - and any human incapable is just not fit to be allowed to breed. If you are devolving back to slavery - perhaps you need be stopped before you have a progeny, considering you'll pass on half your genes.

Humans are indeed animals, we have the same bones as vertebrates, we have the same physiology as mammals, and we all share, as mammals, the four chambered heart - not to mention much of our genes with chimps (99%). We are mammals. We are animals. We are no different than they are when it comes to biology - it is our minds that make use unique, our lovely lock box of information evolved to a state of abilities that allowed us to be superior - and yet I fear it was not allowed to advance far enough...