some of our companions: prohibition also attaches to it, so the mother of the boy and his daughter become prohibited to the sodomizer, and the mother of the sodomizer and his daughter become prohibited to the boy. He said: Ahmad stated this explicitly. This is the opinion of al-Awza'i; because it is intercourse in the private part, so it spreads the prohibition, like intercourse with a woman. Also, she is the daughter of the one he had intercourse with, and his mother, so they become prohibited to him, just as if the person had was female. Abu al-Khattab said: This is like intimate contact without the private part, regarding which there are two narrations. The correct view is that this does not spread the prohibition, for these [individuals] are not explicitly mentioned in the prohibition, so they fall under the general scope of the saying of the Almighty: "And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these" (19). Furthermore, they are not explicitly mentioned, nor are they in the meaning of the one mentioned, so it is necessary that the ruling of prohibition does not apply to them. For those who are mentioned in this regard are the wives of sons, those with whom fathers have had intercourse, mothers of wives, and their daughters, and these [individuals] are neither from among them nor in their meaning; because intercourse with a woman (20) is a cause for lineage (or intimacy), requires a dower, lineage is established through it, the woman becomes a bed [for the man], and it establishes rulings that sodomy does not establish. Thus, it is not permissible to attach it to them due to the absence of the effective cause and the severance of the analogy. Therefore, if a man breastfeeds a child, the ruling of prohibition is not established through it, so this [case] is more deserving [of the same]. And if a similarity is posited between them from a weak angle, it is not permissible to specify the generality of the Book [Quran] through it, nor to discard the explicit text based upon such an analogy.

Section: It is prohibited for a man to marry his daughter from adultery, his sister, his son's daughter, his daughter's daughter, his brother's daughter, and his sister's daughter from adultery. This is the opinion of the generality of the jurists. Malik and al-Shafi'i in the well-known [version] of his school said: All of that is permissible; because she is a stranger to him and is not legally attributed (22) to him, nor does inheritance flow between them, nor does she become free under him if he owns her, nor is he obligated to provide her maintenance; so she is not prohibited to him, like all other strangers. As for our evidence, it is the saying of Allah the Almighty: "Prohibited to you are your mothers and your daughters" (23). And this