Mohammad allows man to suck woman’s breast


In the name of Allāh,
the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.
Allāh–the Glorious and the High,
Lord of the worlds
Mohammad–who brought the world
to our feet and eternity to our arms.

(See also  goat ate page; 127 verses and verse on stoning lost;

David Wood proves Jesus is God)

Islam prohibits marriage between a child and the woman who suckled him and also forbids marriage between a male and female who were suckled by the same woman–(Qur’an 4:23).
Though the Qur’an does not state how many sucklings (breast-feedings) are needed to qualify as fostering/fosterage, ‘Aishah is reported as saying–(Muslim Vol.2 #3421): “it has been revealed in the Holy Qur’an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allāh’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur’an (and recited by the Muslims)”.
(Verses could NOT be removed from the Qur’an after the Prophet’s rehearsing the Qur’an with Angel Gabriel. That which the Prophet rehearsed with Angel Gabriel and passed on to us through the Caliphs and which we have at present is the original Qur’an. And to the Resurrection. Everything that was or should have been in the Qur’an is moot. The Prophet is the only and the final authority on the Qur’an. And there is no discrepancy in the Qur’an, only a lack of meditating on its verses–Qur’an 4:82). 

Sahih Muslim Vol. 2, #’s 3424-3429 is about an incident involving the Prophet, Sahla and her husband, Abu Hudhaifa, and Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, as narrated by ‘Aishah, wife of the Prophet.
Hudhaifa was uncomfortable with the mature Salim coming over to their house, fearing sexual contact between Salim and his wife. Sahla mentioned the situation to the Prophet. The Prophet told Sahla to suckle Salim (which would make Sahla Salim’s foster mother, thus making Sahla unlawful for Salim to have sex with her). And which would make Hudhaifa’s dislike of Salim “disappear.”

Hadith #3424 states, when the Prophet told Sahla to “Suckle him. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man?” The Prophet “smiled and said: I already know that he is a young man. ‘Amr has made this addition in his narration that he participated in the Battle of Badr and in the narration of Ibn ‘Umar (the words are): Allāh’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) laughed.” (Later, Sahla returned and said (to whom is not stated, probably to ‘Aishah) she suckled Salim and Hudhaifa’s dislike “disappeared”. The question is, did Salim took milk directly from Sahla’s breast or did Sahla squeezed the milk into a vessel and gave Salim to drink?)

The other question is why did the Prophet “smiled” and “laughed” if he was dispensing religious guidance? Was he only jesting when he told Sahla to suckle Salim? The Prophet’s statement “I already know that he is a young man” seems to suggest he was jesting/teasing Sahla because a grown man/ woman cannot have fosterage relationship through suckling.
What constitutes fosterage? ‘Aishah provides the answer in Bokhari Vol.7, #39:
‘Aishah said the Prophet “entered upon her while a man was sitting with her. Signs of anger seemed to appear on his face as if he disliked that. She said, “Here is my (foster) brother.” He (the Prophet) said, “Be sure as to who is your foster brother, for foster suckling relationship is established only when milk is the only food of the child.”
 (Thus, be it woman-child fosterage or sibling fosterage, fosterage is established only through suckling in infancy).

Evidently, there is no fosterage relationship outside of infancy when a child cannot eat any solids –and as a “young man” Salim could probably even crunch the camel’s jaw-bone.
Whether Salim took milk directly from Sahla or from a vessel, and even if he did it a million times there is no fosterage relationship between Salim and Sahla.
The Prophet knowing there could not be fosterage relationship between Salim and Sahla, the only possible conclusion one can arrive at is that the Prophet was only jesting/teasing Sahla –perhaps he did not expect Sahla to take him seriously– and that was why he “smiled: and “laughed.”

There is no basis that the Prophet allowed a grown man to suckle the breast of another man’s wife (or a spinster’s) in order to establish fosterage relationship so as to make sex unlawful between them.
Be it in a home or work environment, it is a mistake to take this Hadith as precedent for Muslims to suckle/suck the breast of a non-wife to establish foster relationship. From the injunctions in the Qur’an, there is no such allowance. The Prophet governed only according to the Qur’an.

Christians and others use this Hadith of Muslim Vol. 2, #’s 3424-3429 to berate the Prophet/Islam and ridicule Muslims. Though their Bible/God tells people to eat cakes made with human dung and cow’s dung and have men take little virgin girls as sex-slaves.
God (and as Christian say Jesus is God, Jesus) told the prophet Ezekiel to eat cakes mixed with human “dung” but changed it to “cow’s dung” after Ezekiel complained:
“Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley….and make thee bread thereof….And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with DUNG THAT COMETH OUT OF MAN, in their sight. And the Lord said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their DEFILED bread….Then said I, Ah Lord God! behold, my soul hath not been POLLUTED: for from my youth up till even now have I not EATEN of that which dieth of itself, or is torn to pieces; neither came there ABOMINABLE FLESH INTO MY MOUTH. Then he (God) said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung, and thou shalt PREPARE THY BREAD THEREWITH”–(Ezekiel 4:9-15).

One Christian says the “human dung” and “cow’s dung” were to be used as “fuel” to bake the cakes. But even if Jews saved this dung for fuel and even if fresh dung can burn, the Bible belies the claim as stated in the verse:
“And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it WITH dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the Lord said, Even thus shall the children of Israel EAT their DEFILED bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them. Then said I, Ah Lord God! behold, my soul hath not been POLLUTED: for from my youth up till even now have I not EATEN of that which dieth of itself, or is torn to pieces; neither came there ABOMINABLE FLESH INTO MY MOUTH.”
The bread could not be “defiled” if the dung was used as fuel. The bread could only be “defiled” and an “abomination” to eat if it was mixed with human dung. Clearly, it was meant for Ezekiel to eat the human “dung” which to him was an “abomination” whereupon God decreed “cow’s dung” instead: “Then he (God) said to me, Lo, I give thee cow’s dung FOR MAN’S DUNG, and thou shalt PREPARE THY BREAD THEREWITH” (Ezekiel 4:15).

That the Christian God gave little virgin girls as sex-slaves:
“Then the Lord spake unto Moses, saying…And they warred against the Midianites….And they brought the CAPTIVES and the prey and the spoil to Moses, and Eleazar…And Moses said unto them…Now therefore kill every MALE among the LITTLE ONES (of the captives), and kill EVERY WOMAN who hath known man by lying with him (to know which woman and girls were virgins the soldiers must have had to physically examine/finger  them one TV program on Africa showed teenage school-girls made to lie on the ground and a woman sticking  her finger up them to ensure intact  hymen), but ALL THE WOMEN CHILDREN, that have not known a man by lying with him (virgin girls) KEEP ALIVE FOR YOURSELVES…
And the BOOTY, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, and 61,000 asses, and of WOMEN that had not known man by lying with him (virgin girls), were 32,000. And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was….16,000 persons (virgin girls) ….the men of war had taken SPOIL (BOOTY), EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF”–(Numbers chapter 31).
(Surely, these 16,000 young “virgin” girls who were “booty’ were taken by the “warriors” not for ploughing fields or making pretzels. (Numbers chapter 31 was combined from two different translations to make it easy to understand).
As for Christians who mouth-off that Mohammad was a pedophile because he married ‘Aishah, the Christian God “Jesus’ in mandating taking little girls as “booty”, Jesus sanctions pedophilia.

Whereas Mohammad was HUMAN and the Hadith is not clear whether Sahla suckled Salim directly or gave him milk from a vessel. In the Bible it is the Christians’ GOD (Jesus) who tells people, and clearly, to eat cakes made from human filth and cow’s filth.

   And on the human front.  While Christians and others try to denigrate Mohammad. Perhaps these Christians and others have non-wife/non-husband mates (who may be wives and husbands of others) and not only suck the breasts of these non-wives and non-husbands but engage in fellatio/cunnilingus/analingus with them and even come in contact with genital/anal excretions.

Muslims are not be overwhelmed by Christian onslaught; Christians and critics are vast on text and void on substance. If you do not understand verse(s) of the Qur’an and/or Hadith leave it alone. It took man a thousand years with science to explain some of the verses of the Qur’an.

Muslims who apostatized from Islam (and Christians who want that “mansion” or “bungalow” in heaven) have the grand opportunity while you are alive to return (turn) to Allāh; when you die –and no one knows when he/she will die– this grand opportunity evaporates like a dewdrop in Hell. And you as the fuel!
See also :
-goat ate page; 127 verses and verse on stoning lost;
-David Wood proves Jesus is God

I bear witness there is no God but Allāh;
And I bear witness Mohammad is
the Messenger of Allāh!
Subhān Allāh!
Alhamdo lillāh!
Allāho Akbar!