The first view is that he has the right to prevent her from breastfeeding him due to the generality of his [al-Khiraqi's] wording. This is the view of al-Shafi'i, because it interferes with his enjoyment of her, thus resembling the case where the child is from someone else. The second view is that he does not have the right to prevent her, for he [al-Khiraqi] said: "And if she wishes to breastfeed her child for the wage of her likes, she is more entitled to him than anyone else, whether she is in the husband's bond [of marriage] or divorced." This is based on the saying of Allah the Almighty: {The mothers shall nurse their children for two whole years}. This is a statement intended as a command, and it is general for every mother. It is not valid for the followers of al-Shafi'i to restrict it to divorced women, because [the Quran] established for them their sustenance and clothing, and they [the Shafi'is] do not permit designating this as wages for breastfeeding or otherwise. Regarding our statement, in the first view, that it interferes with his enjoyment, we say: "But it is for the fulfillment of a right that is upon her, and that is not prohibited, just as paying off his debt through the expenditure of his wealth is obligatory, especially when the right of the child is attached to it, in being with his mother, and the right of [the mother in being together] between her and her child." This view is the apparent meaning of the statement of Ibn Abi Musa, and the first is the apparent meaning of the statement of the Qadi Abu Ya'la.

Section: If a woman hires herself out for breastfeeding and then gets married, the marriage is valid, and the husband does not have the right to annul the lease, nor to prevent her from breastfeeding until the period expires, because her services were owned by a contract prior to his marriage, so it resembles the case where one buys a leased slave girl or an occupied house. If the child sleeps or is busy with something else, the husband may have enjoyment [of her], and the guardian of the child has no right to prevent him. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Malik said: He does not have the right to have intercourse with her except with the consent of the guardian, because that diminishes the milk. Our evidence is that the husband's right to intercourse is established by the contract, so it does not lapse due to a matter about which there is doubt, just as if the guardian had given permission.