The gist of the matter is that if a woman acknowledges that her husband is her brother through breastfeeding and he denies her statement, her statement is not accepted regarding the annulment of the marriage, because it is a right against her. If this occurs before consummation, she has no dower, because she acknowledges that she is not entitled to it. If she had already received it, the husband does not have the right to take it back from her, because he acknowledges that it is a right belonging to her. If it is after consummation and she acknowledges that she was aware that she was his sister and of her being unlawful to him, and that she was a willing participant with him in the intercourse, then she also has no dower, due to her acknowledgment that she is a willing adulteress. If she denies any part of that, she is entitled to the dower, because it is intercourse by way of misconception (shubha), and she is his wife in the outward legal ruling, as her statement against him is not accepted. As for that which is between her and God Almighty, if she knows the truth of what she acknowledged, it is not lawful for her to live with him or allow him to have intercourse with her, and she must flee from him and ransom herself with whatever she can, because his intercourse with her is adultery, so she must free herself from him in whatever way she can, as we stated regarding the woman who knows that her husband divorced her thrice but denies it. It is appropriate that what is due to her of the dower after consummation should be the lesser of the two amounts: either the specified dower or the equivalent dower (mahr al-mithl), because if the specified dower is less, her statement claiming a greater amount is not accepted. If the lesser amount is the equivalent dower, she is not entitled to more than that, due to her admission that her entitlement to it is through her intercourse and not through the contract, so she is not entitled to more than that. If her acknowledgment of his brotherhood is before the marriage, it is not permissible for her to marry him, and her retraction of her acknowledgment is not accepted in the outward legal ruling, because her acknowledgment did not coincide with a marital state that she would be invalidating; thus, her acknowledgment against herself regarding his being unlawful to her is accepted. Similarly, if a man acknowledges that this woman is his sister through breastfeeding, or is unlawful to him due to breastfeeding or otherwise, and his truthfulness is possible, it is not lawful for him to marry her after that in the outward legal ruling. As for that which is between him and God Almighty, it is based upon his knowledge of the reality of the situation, according to what we have mentioned.

Section: If one of the spouses claims against the other that they acknowledged that they are their sibling through breastfeeding, and the other denies it, the testimony of women alone is not accepted for that, because it is testimony regarding an acknowledgment, and acknowledgment is a matter which men also witness, so it does not require the testimony of women alone, and thus it is not accepted, unlike [testimony regarding] the breastfeeding itself.