The First: Whenever he marries an adult woman and a young girl, and the adult woman breastfeeds the young girl before he consummates the marriage with her, the marriage of the adult woman becomes void immediately, and she is prohibited to him forever. This is the opinion of al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). Al-Awza'i said: The marriage of the adult woman remains established, and the young girl is removed from his care. This is not correct, for the adult woman has become one of the mothers of women, so she is prohibited forever, based on the saying of Allah the Almighty: {And the mothers of your wives} (Quran, Surah al-Nisa, 23). He did not stipulate that he must have consummated the marriage with her. As for the young girl, there are two narrations: One of them is that her marriage is established, because she is a stepdaughter, and he has not consummated the marriage with her mother, so she is not prohibited, based on the saying of Allah the Almighty: {But if you have not consummated the marriage with them, then there is no blame upon you} (Quran, Surah al-Nisa, 23). The second narration is that her marriage is rescinded. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i and Abu Hanifah, because they both became mother and daughter and were joined in his marriage, and the combination of them is prohibited, so both their marriages are rescinded, just as if they became two sisters, or as if he concluded a single contract for both of them after the breastfeeding. Our position is that it is possible to remove the combination by rescinding the marriage of the adult woman, and she is more appropriate for this, because her marriage is prohibited forever, so their marriage is not nullified by it, just as if he had initiated the contract for his sister and a stranger. Furthermore, the combination occurred upon the marriage of the mother and daughter, so the rescission is specific to the marriage of the mother, just as if he embraced Islam while he had a wife and her daughter. This differs from the case of two sisters, because one of them is not more deserving of rescission than the other, and it differs from the case where he initiates the contract for both of them, because the continuity [of a marriage] is stronger than the initiation.

The Second Section: If he had consummated the marriage with the adult woman, both of them become prohibited to him forever, and both their marriages are rescinded, because the adult woman has become one of the mothers of women, and the young girl is a stepdaughter whose mother he has consummated marriage with, so she becomes prohibited with a permanent prohibition. If the breastfeeding was with his milk, the young girl becomes a daughter who is prohibited to him for two reasons: because she is his daughter and his stepdaughter whose mother he has consummated marriage with.

The Third Section: That he is entitled to half of the young girl's dower, because her marriage was rescinded before he consummated the marriage with her, through no action of her own. When a rescission comes from a third party, it is like the husband's divorce in terms of the necessity of the dowry upon him. There is no dowry for the adult woman if he has not consummated the marriage with her, because the rescission of her marriage was due to a cause from her own side, so her dowry lapsed, just as if she had apostatized. Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the People of Opinion have stated this, and we know of no disagreement regarding it. If he had consummated the marriage with the adult woman, her dowry does not lapse, because it became established upon his consummation of the marriage with her in a manner that nothing can cause it to lapse, and for this reason, it does not lapse due to her apostasy or anything else.

The Fourth Section: That he has recourse against the adult woman for what he is liable for regarding the young girl's dowry. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. It is narrated from some of his companions that he has recourse for her entire dowry, because she destroyed the marital relationship (bud'), so compensation for it is due. The People of Opinion said: If the breastfeeding woman intended corruption, he has recourse against her for half the dowry; otherwise, he has no recourse for anything. Malik said: He has no recourse for anything. Our argument regarding his recourse against her for the half is that she confirmed it upon him, obligated him with it, and destroyed for him that which was in its stead, so compensation became due upon her, just as if she had destroyed the object of a sale for him. Our argument against Abu Hanifah is that what is liable in cases of intent is also liable in cases of error, like property, and because she corrupted his marriage and confirmed half the dowry upon him, [so its compensation became incumbent upon her], as if she had intended the corruption. Our argument that the husband only has recourse for half is that the husband did not lose anything but the half, so he is not entitled to more than what he lost, and because by the rescission, the substitute for the other half returned to him, so he is not entitled to the substitute for what he already took as a substitute another time, and because the exit of the marital relationship from the husband's ownership has no value, and the breastfeeding woman only became liable here when she obligated the husband with what was exposed to lapsing due to a cause originating from the wife, so he does not have recourse here for more than what she obligated him with.