al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: It does not cause prohibition because the name [of milk] ceases to apply. Similarly, based on the narration which states that prohibition is not established by wajur (oral administration), it is not established here a fortiori. Our argument (14) is that it reaches the throat and results in the growth of flesh and the thickening of bones, thus prohibition is established by it, just as if he had drunk it.

Section: As for the enema (huqna), Abu al-Khattab said: The text narrated from Ahmad is that it does not cause prohibition. This is the school of Abu Hanifa and Malik. Ibn Hamid and Ibn Abi Musa said: It does cause prohibition. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, because it is a passage through which the substance reaching [the inside] causes the breaking of the fast, so the prohibition is attached to it, like breastfeeding. Our argument is that this is not breastfeeding, nor does it result in nourishment; therefore, it does not spread the prohibition, just as if one dropped something into his urethra. Furthermore, it is not breastfeeding nor is it in the meaning of it, so it is not permissible to establish its ruling upon it. It differs from the breaking of the fast, as that does not require the growth of flesh or the thickening of bones, whereas this [breastfeeding] does not cause prohibition unless it causes the growth of flesh and the thickening of bones. Moreover, the milk reached the interior from a path other than the throat, which is similar to if it reached [the interior] from a wound.

1369 - Issue; He said: (And mixed milk is like pure milk)

Al-mashub (mixed) is that which is mixed with something else. Al-mahd (pure) is the unadulterated [milk] that is not mixed with anything else. Al-Khiraqi equated the two, whether it was mixed with food, drink, or other than that (1). This is the view held by al-Shafi'i. Abu Bakr said: The analogy of Ahmad's statement is that it does not cause prohibition, because it is wajur. It was narrated from Ibn Hamid [that he said: (2) If the milk is the majority, it causes prohibition, otherwise it does not. This is the view of Abu Thawr and al-Muzani, because the ruling follows the majority, and because by that the name and the intended meaning cease to apply. A similar view is held by the scholars of opinion (ashab al-ra'y), and they added: If fire has touched the milk to the point that it cooked the food or it has changed, then it is not breastfeeding. The argument for the first [position] is that whenever the milk is apparent, its consumption is achieved, and it results in