to her divorcer, so she became prohibited to him, because she is his mother, and she separated from him. Since she was his wife, she became the wife of her divorcer's son, and thus she was prohibited to the first [husband] perpetually, because she became one of the wives of his sons. If a woman married a child and found a defect in him, she annulled the marriage, then she married an adult, and milk manifested for her from him, and she breastfed the child with it five times, she becomes prohibited to her husband, because she became one of the wives of his sons. If a man married his slave-mother or his slave-girl to a young slave, and she breastfed him with the milk of her master five times, the marriage is annulled, and she becomes prohibited to her master perpetually, because she became one of the wives of his sons. If the child was free, this sub-issue is not conceivable, and his marriage would not be valid; because among the conditions for the permissibility of a free man marrying a slave-girl is the fear of hardship (al-'anat), and that does not exist in a child. If he married her, the marriage would be corrupt, and if she breastfed him, she would not become prohibited to her master, because he is not a husband in reality.

Section: If a man divorces his wife and she has milk from him, and she marries another, this situation admits five scenarios: First, the milk of the first remains as it was, neither increasing nor decreasing, and she does not give birth to a child from the second. The milk belongs to the first, whether she becomes pregnant by the second or not. We know of no disagreement regarding this; because the milk belonged to the first, and nothing new has occurred to attribute it to the second, so it remains for the first. Second, that she does not become pregnant by the second, [it belongs to the first], whether it increased or did not increase, or it ceased then returned, or did not cease. Third, that she gives birth to a child from the second, then the milk belongs to him exclusively. Ibn al-Mundhir said: Everyone I remember from among the people of knowledge has reached consensus on this. This is the view of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i, whether it increased or did not increase, ceased or remained constant; because the milk of the first ceases upon childbirth from the second, as the need of the newborn for milk prevents it from belonging to anyone else. Fourth, that the milk of the first remains, and it increases due to pregnancy from the second, then the milk belongs to both of them, according to the view of our companions.