because its status as a grandmother is built upon the status of her daughter as a mother, and none of her daughters has become a mother. It is possible that she might become forbidden because five sucklings from her daughters have been completed for her. The same rule applies if her daughter suckles her once, her granddaughter once, and her daughters' daughters three times. If five sucklings are completed for her from his wife with his milk, and from his mother, his sister, his daughter, and his granddaughter, then there are two viewpoints; the most correct of which is that her prohibition is not established. In the other, it is established. According to this viewpoint, her marriage is rescinded, and he has recourse against them for what he paid of her dowry, according to the extent of their suckling. If it is said: Why does he not have recourse against them based on the number of heads, given that suckling is a corrupting factor, such that its small and large amounts are equal, just as if a group of people were to cast an impurity into a liquid at one time? We say: It is because the prohibition is related to the number of sucklings, so the compensation is related to the number, unlike impurity, for the contamination is not related to an amount, so its small and large amounts are equal, because the small and the large are the same in causing corruption. The equivalent of that would be if he were to drink more from one of them in the suckling than he drinks from the other.

Section: If he has a wife who is a slave, and she suckles his young wife, thereby rendering her forbidden to him and rescinding her marriage, then what becomes incumbent upon him of the young girl's dowry is his right against the slave's person; because that resulted from her criminal act. If his umm al-walad (mother of his child) suckles her, she corrupts his marriage and renders her forbidden to him, because she is a step-daughter whose mother he has consummated with, and the umm al-walad becomes forbidden to him forever because she is one of his wives' mothers, and there is no liability upon her because she corrupted [the marriage] for her master. If he had granted her a kitaba (manumission contract), he would have recourse against her, because the mukataba (woman under such contract) is liable for the indemnity of her criminal acts. If his umm al-walad suckles his son's wife with his milk, she rescinds her marriage and renders her forbidden to him; because she