الثلاثاء، 19 يونيو، 2007

عتاب!


تحيه لكل من ينادي باترام حريه العقيده و حريه الرأي و الحريه الشخصيه. و تحيه لكل من يعمل في اي ميدان ليندد بسياسه حكومات
و حكام من أجل مناضل أو مجاهد في حقل من حقول حقوق الأنسان. , تحيه لهؤلاء الذين يحترمون الآخر و رأيه!
نشر موقع الأقباط متحدون مقاله للمهندس كميل حليم بعنوان اعتقال القرآنيين في مصر بتاريخ14/06/07 يطالب فيها الكاتب بأطلاق سراح رئيس مجموعه القرآنيين الدكتور أحمد صبحي منصور و الذي أعتقل في مصر مؤخرا مقترفا جريمه واحده و هي أن معتقداته الدينيه تختلف مع هذا الذي تؤمن به الحكومه المصريه. و يبدو أن قلم المهندس حليم أصيب بهزه عصبيه و سرد وقائع غير حقيقيه و ليس لها أي اساس من الصحه.
عندما نناصر صديق فالمناصره فرديه و محدوده و لكن في مناصره قضيه فنحن نحصل علي تعضيد أوسع و أفضل و نجذب انتباه هؤلاء الذين يعرفون د.منصور و أيضا الذين لايعرفونه. القضيه التي نتحدث عنها هي قضيه عدم أحترام المواثيق الدوليه التي تنص علي أن من حق كل فرد التمتع بحريه العقيده و حريه الرأي. ما حدث مع الدكتور أحمد منصور يحدث كل يوم بل و كل ساعه في مصرنا المحروسه. و نسمع عن ناشطي حقوق الأنسان يقومون بالاعتراض و التنديد مما يحدث بل و يحاول كل من له مركز أجتماعي أو علمي أو سياسي ان يجمع تعضيدات من جميع انحاء العالم من اجل ارسال رسائل واضحه و قويه لهؤلاء المهضومي الحق.
أنا ضد اعتقال أي فرد من أفراد مجموعه القرآنيين و أنا ضد أعتقال نبيل عبد الكريم سليمان و أنا ضد أي اضطهادات و أفعال عدوانيه مبنيه علي أساس الدين أو المعتقد السياسي أو العرق أو الجنس و أرفع صوتي عاليا مطالبه و بعنف الحكومات المعتديه برفع أيديها القذره عن الذين لم يرتكبوا جرما الا أنهم يمارسوا حقوقا مكتسبه بالولاده و ليست منحه من منح سياده الريس و لاحكومته!
و عندما نتخذ قرار بأن نجاهر و ننادي بحقوق المعتدي عليهم بدون وجه حق, يجب أن نتذكر أن القضيه هي قضيه الدفاع عن هؤلاء الذين يعانون من الحبس و من الظلم. ويجب أن نتذكر أن هؤلاء هم الأبطال الذين آمنوا بعقيده في دوله يحكمها الدين الأفضل و تقبلوا الحبس و الأضطهاد عن الذله و الأنزواء حتي لايهانوا من قبل أمن دوله و لا شرطي ولا فتوي من الفتاوي التي أصبحت تدير الحكم في مصر. عندما نكتب و نطالب بحقوق انسان مظلوم يكون هذا هو الهدف و ليس البحث عن استحسان القراء لما أكتب يكون الغرض من الكتابه العمل من اجل المظلوم و ليس من أجل الذات!
ما وقع فيه المهندس حليم أنه جعل القضيه الأساسيه ما هي الا عنصر ثانوي لتأتي المقاله تمجيدا لذاته و شهامته و بطولته اكثر منها تعضيدا للدكتور منصور و لن اكون مبالغه أو خاطئه أذا كتبت أن المقاله قد أذت د.صبحي أكثر مما فادته و انه هزت صوره المهندس حليم هزه غير بسيطه و دعوني أشرح في سطور قليله لماذا!
في مؤتمر واشنطن 2005 و عندما أعترض د. منصور علي احدي المتحدثات اثبت للعالم أنه لايقبل الرأي الآخر. و أثبت أن ما ينادي به من حريه الفرد في التعبير عن رأيه ما هو الا كلام في الهوا للحصول علي معضدين و لكن حقبقه الأمر أنه لايؤمن بها و لذلك هاج و ماج بدون أي اساس لهذه الثوره. عندما أعترض جاء أعتراضه أعتراض شخصي كما و لو كانت المتحدثه توجه الحديث له هو فقط و بدأ يوضح أنه اهين من أجل الأقباط و أنه عاني من الحبس و الأهانه و الأضطهاد و أن تقف امرأه تتحدث بهذه الطريقه هذا غير مقبول! توقعت من أستاذ يعرف الأسلام أكثر من المتحدثه أن يوضح للساده الحاضرين أين أخطأت هذه المرأه و لكن عوضا عن ذلك كانت الثوره لأبراز ال "انـــا" أكثر من التحدث عن صلب الموضوع. قد يكون بالفعل أن الدكتو صبحي قد عاني و نال نصيبه الوافر من الحبس و الظلم و الأضطهاد و الأهانه من أجل الدفاع عن قضيه الأقباط و لكن اذا كانت المثحدثه قد أخطأت في النص أو المصدر كان من أصول المناقشه أن يوضح الخطأ و كيف يصحح. تعودت في المؤتمرات و المناقشات و المناظرات التي علي مستوي راق أن يحترم الحاضرين الرأي الآخر. هم غير مجبرون علي تقبله و لهم حق الرد عليه في اصول المناقشه. المتحدثه وضعت حديثين شريفين و آيتين من القرآن لتوضيح موقع المرأه في الأسلام حتي تعضد بحثها عن معامله المرأه القبطيه في مصر.و الأعتراض جاء ياأعزائي القراء في اتجاه واحد فقط و هو "كيف و لأمراه مسيحيه أن تنقد الأسلام" أين الموضوعيه يا أفاضل؟ الطريف أن عدد كبير من الأقباط أعترضوا و بشده علي ورقتي و هذا لم أمر لم افاجأ بهو فبعد 1400 عام من التعامل مع المسيحيين كأهل ذمه ماذا نتوقع؟ لكن من انسان يحمل من الدرجات العلميه قائمه طويله و يستطيع مناقشه ما قدمته هذه المتحدثه هذا ما لااتوقعه علي الأطلاق يا دكتور صبحي! و ذكر المهندس حليم لهذه الواقعه لم يكن منصفا للدكتور صبحي و ذكرني هذا بقصه الدب الذي حاول قتل الذبابه التي وقفت علي رأس صاحبه و هو نائم فاتي بحجره كبيره و رماهاعلي الذبابه لقتلها فقتل معها صاحبه. فرغم ان الدب صديق لصاحبه الا أنه بسوء تصرفه و قصر نظره اذي هذا الصاحب بل و انهي حياته!
أما بالنسبه للسيد كاتب المقاله:
أولا: هو لم يوقف المتحدثه و لا المؤتمر و لا كان هناك اي لخبطه علي الأطلاق بل سارت الأمور كما تم ترتيبها من قبل دون اي تعديلات. ووجب أن أوضح ان هذه المتحدثه أدارت جلسه طويله في اليوم الثاني و تقابلت مع وزاره الخارجيه الأمريكيه ( المكتب الخاص بمصر) و كانت أحد أعضاء اللجنه المقرره لقرارت المؤتمر. لم يسحب منها اي من هذه المسؤليات حتي بعد تقديم ورقتها و التي كانت أول ورقه بعد افتتاحيه المهندس عدلي ابادير. و لن اشرح أكثر من ذلك فانا احترم ذكاء القارئ ليدرك معني ما كتب اعلاه!
ثانيا: القارئ لايهمه يا باشمهندس انك تناولت افطار رمضان أو أكلتم عدس في صيام العذراء و أنكم أصدقاء ضد المعتديه الغادره و التي تحدثت في واشنطن, القضيه هنا يا استاذي الفاضل هي قضيه حقوق انسان و ليست مسطبه عمده نقعد و نفتكر اللي كان و نشرب شاي و نقول ( آه كــــانت أيــــام, ايــــــــه دنيا) عند التحدث عن قضيه القرآنيين أذن تتحدث عن القرآنيين و قضيتهم و تركز عليها و ليس علي شخصك الفاضل لا أعتقد أنك في أحتياج لمدح من قراء و لا شكر من جمعيه القرآنيين, تصورت أنك علي مستوي من العلم و المكانه الأجتماعيه لتسمو بمكانتك عن هذا التهريج.
ثالثا: أذا كنت تنادي بحق الذين تنتهك حقوقهم لماذا تعترض علي متحدثه تنقد الأسلام؟ هل الأسلام يعلو عن المسيحيه و اليهوديه و الأديان الأخري التي تنقد كل يوم و كل ساعه؟ هل تعترض سيادتكم علي ما تكتبه الصحافه المصريه و العربيه عن المسيحيين؟ و هل أعترضت علي حكومه مصر العزيزه في أحداث الكشح و صنبو و أبو قرقاص و العديسات؟ هل تعترض علي خطف البنات القبطيات القصر و اغتصابهم و اجبارهم عل الأسلام؟ هل طالبت الحكومه بأن تضع حدا لهذه المهاترات؟أعتقد أن القائمه طويله و هنا ليس مجال لرصهم و لكن يا عزيزي الناشط القبطي ليس هناك اسهل من نهر قبطي لقبطي آخر عنما يقف ليعلن حقائق و كأنك بذلك تؤكد للعالم اننا مازلنا ( ذميين) نقبل الأهانه من اسيادنا و نهين بعضنا البعض!!!!!!!
يعطي الله لكل عطيه أو موهبه و ينتظر منا ان نستخدمها من اجل اسمه و من اجل شعبه. هناك من يملك موهبه الكتابه و آخر يملك موهبه الخطابه و هناك من حباه الله ان يكون قائدا و مخططا و هناك من فاتهم قطار المواهب و لكنهم قادرون علي الصلاه من أجل هؤلاء الذين كانواعلي موعد مع قطار المواهب -قادرون ان يصلوا من اجلهم حتي يعطيهم الله نعمه و قوه للعمل من اجل اخواتهم البشر حتي يحققوا الهدف الذي نسعي له جميعا و هو ان نكون بني آدمين قبل أن نكون مسيحيين أو مسلمين أو يهود و أن تكون خانه الجنسيه قبل خانه الديانه!
فلملذا لاتنضم معي يا باشمهندس حليم للصلاه من أجل هؤلاء الذين انعم عليهم الله بموهبه ما؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟
Nadia Ghaly

السبت، 26 مايو، 2007

إنقذوا طلاب الأزهر من مناهج الأزهر!

إنقذوا طلاب الأزهر من مناهج الأزهر!
د. خالد منتصر
* مازال الطالب الأزهرى يدرس السرموزة والجمجم والجرموق ويحفظ حكم معاشرة القرد للآدمى!. * مناهج الأزهر تخالف العلم الحديث وتتحدث عن حمل مدته أربع سنوات وأمراض تعالج ببول الإبل، وكبد مريض بسبب طول الجلوس فى الحمام، وخرس سببه الكلام أثناء الجماع. * الزوج غير ملزم بكفن الزوجة أو أجرة طبيبها وله أن يمنعها عن حضور جنازة أبيها. * ممنوع على النصارى ركوب الأحصنة وإطالة الشعر ودق النواقيس، وممنوع علينا أن نبدأهم بالسلام!
طلاب الأزهر ضحايا وليسوا مجرمين، إنهم مخلب قط وعروسة ماريونيت يحركها بخيوط شفافة من هم وراء الستار، والتعامل الأمنى معهم ليس هو الحل، فهم ملف ثقافى وفكرى وليسوا ملفاً أمنياً، و السؤال المهم الذى لابد أن نسأله لأنفسنا، لماذا طلاب الأزهر بالذات هم أول وأسهل الضحايا للفكر المتطرف ؟، والإجابة ببساطة هى لأن المناهج التى يدرسونها هى التى تجعل منهم عجينة طيعه فى فرن التطرف، إن بعض مناهج وكتب الأزهر بشكلها القديم هى مشتل الإرهاب ومفرخة التطرف، بقراءة بسيطة لبعض مايدرسه هؤلاء الضحايا سنعرف المتهم الحقيقى فى تطرف هؤلاء، وفى قراءتنا تلك سنعود إلى كتب الفقه المقررة على المدارس الأزهرية مثل "الروض المربع بشرح زاد المستنقع" وهو للمذهب الحنبلى وتم تأليفه منذ أربعة قرون، وكتاب المذهب الشافعى "الإقناع فى حل ألفاظ أبى شجاع" وتم تأليفه أيضاً منذ أكثر من أربعة قرون، وكتاب المذهب الحنفى "الإختيار لتعليل المختار" وهو مؤلف منذ أكثر من خمسة قرون، أما أحدثهم وهو كتاب المذهب المالكى "المقرر من الشرح الصغير" فهو مؤلف منذ قرنين!، وبالطبع أول ماسيفاجئنا هو هذه المدد الزمنية البعيدة التى لابد أن تحمل معها الغريب من الألفاظ والمهجور من الأفكار التى طالما نادى المستنيرون من المسلمين بتطويرها، ومن أهم الدراسات التى ناقشت هذا التغيير دراسة علاء قاعود فى كتابه إصلاح علوم الدين وهى أهم هذه الدراسات على الإطلاق، وأحمد صبحى منصور وسليم العوا وطارق البشرى وأحياناً شيخ الأزهر نفسه، وسنحاول التركيز على نماذج محددة بعينها فى هذه المناهج نستطيع أن نخلص منها إلى خطورة تبنيها والإعتماد عليها لأنها ببساطة هى طابور خامس للإرهاب الخفى أو على الأقل إفراز مستمر للجمود والتزمت، وهذه النماذج هى :
1- الحشو واللغو وغريب القول : فى القرن الواحد والعشرين يقرأ تلاميذ الأزهر عن حكم الخنثى المشكل الذى يجامع فى نهار رمضان خنثى أخرى، أو إمرأة مع إمرأة بمساحقة فأنزلت، وماهو مصيرهما ؟!(ص 158 نفس الكتاب السابق )، أو وجوب الغسل إذا أدخل الذكر حشفته أوقدرها من مقطوعها فى فرج بهيمة أو فى دبرها ( ص 90كتاب المذهب الشافعى)، أو ماذا لو أولج حيوان قرداً أو غيره فى آدمى ولاحشفة له ؟(نفس الصفحة السابقة من نفس الكتاب )، أو إذا خلق للمرأة فرجان فماذا يكون حكم الحيض ؟!(ص 145 كتاب المذهب الشافعى)، أو ماذا نفعل نحن المساكين الذين أمرنا بأن نسجد على سبعة أعظم هى الجبهة واليدين والركبتين وأطراف القدمين، ماذا يفعل من خلق برأسين وأربع أيدى وأربع أرجل ؟(ص 205 نفس الكتاب)، بالذمة ده كلام أنا مش حأقول حاجة وأترك لكم الرد على هذا الخيال الهوليودى المحلق!!، وبالذمة ماذا يستفيد أطفالنا وشبابنا من قراءة كلمات غريبة مهجورة مثل لايجوز لبس السرموزة والجمجم، أو لابأس على المرأة أن تصل شعرها بقرامل وهى الأعقصة، ويجوز المسح على الجرموق، ويجب أن يعرف عفاصها...الخ.
2 -مخالفة العلم الحديث: [ تصدمنا مقررات الفقه فى الأزهر أنها لاتجافى فقط اللغة الحديثة وإنما تجافى وتخاصم العلم الحديث، فالمهم عندهم هو ماذا قيل فى الكتب القديمة وليس ماقيل فى محافل العلم الحديثة، فأعظم مايجتهد فيه التيار المحافظ فى الأزهر هو شرح الشرح وتلخيص التلخيص وطبخ ماسبق طبخه وتقديمه للطلبة فى وجبة "بايتة " وعليهم أن يأكلوها بل وبنفس مفتوحة، والأمثلة على تجاوز العلم لماتقوله هذه الكتب كثيرة وأضخم من أن تضمها صفحات جريدة ولذلك سنقتبس فقط بعضها ليدل البعض على فداحة الكل، فنقرأ مثلاً فى صفحة 389 من كتاب الفقه الحنبلى السابق ذكره أن أقصى مدة للحمل هى أربع سنين!فهل هذا معقول وإذا كان مؤلف الكتاب معذور لأنه ألف هذا الكتاب منذ أربعة قرون فالأزهر مقصر وغير معذور فى تبنيه لمثل هذا الهراء العلمى، وفى ص 119 يتحدث الكتاب عن التداوى ببول الإبل، وفى ص 355 ينهى عن الكلام عند مجامعة النساء لأنها تسبب الخرس والفأفأة!، وفى ص 50 فى باب الاذان يسن للمؤذن أن يجعل سبابتيه فى أذنيه لأنه أرفع للصوت، وفى ص 72 تبطل الصلاة بمرور كلب أسود لأنه شيطان، والكلام الغريب عن دم الحيض الذى يقول عنه الكتاب فى صفحة 43 أنه يخرج من قعر الرحم لحكمة غذاء الولد وتربيته وهو كلام كوميدى عفا عليه الزمن، وفى كتاب الجنائز عن علامات الموت يقول أنه يعرف بإنخساف الصدغين وميل الأنف وإنفصال الكف وإسترخاء الأرجل ص 120! وهو ماإعتمد عليه الفقهاء المحافظون فى تأخير قانون زراعة الأعضاء ورفض الموت الإكلينيكى الذى تحدده أحدث الأجهزة الطبية، وفى كتاب المذهب الشافعى نفس الكلام المجافى للعلم مثل يستثنى من النجس الميتة التى لادم لها سائل مثل القمل والبرغوث، وإن الماء بالليل مأوى الجن ص 76، وأن التنشيف بذيل الثوب بعد الوضوء يورث الفقر ص 69، ولابد من طى الثياب ليلاً حتى لايتلبسها الجن ليلاً ص 310، وفى آداب قضاء الحاجة ص 80 " يكره حشو مخرج البول من الذكر بالقطن وإطالة المكث فى محل قضاء الحاجة لأنه يورث وجعاً فى الكبد "، وحتى الظواهر الطبيعية لم تسلم من الشطح " فالرعد ملك والبرق أجنحته يسوق بها السحاب " ص 302، وإقرأوا هذا التعريف العجيب للنوم الذى كتب فى صفحة 84 بأنه إسترخاء أعصاب الدماغ بسبب رطوبات الأبخرة الصاعدة من المعدة "!!، أعتقد أننى إستنفذت علامات التعجب كلها فمعذرة، أما تعريف الجنون فى نفس الكتاب فهو تعريف "أنقح وأقوى "فهو زوال الشعور من القلب مع بقاء الحركة والقوة فى الأعضاء "، أما الشرط الذى وضعه كتاب المذهب المالكى للتوأم فهو من أعجب الشروط فهو يقول فى صفحة 79 " والتوأمان الولدان فى بطن إذا كان بينهما أقل من ستة أشهر!، وبالطبع لابد أن يراجع هذا الكلام العجيب وماينافى منه العلم الحديث يتم شطبه فليس معنى أن هذا الكلام قد قاله القدماء أن نقول له آمين ونخلع عقولنا على بابه. 3-وضع المرأة المهين: [ لم يتعرض كائن للإهانة والمهانة مثلما تعرضت له المرأة على أيدى الفقهاء القدامى، وبرغم إنصاف القرآن والرسول –صلعم- لها إلا أن التراث البدوى الجامد والأعراف والتقاليد الصحراوية كانت أحياناً أقوى وأعنف، وفى كتب الفقه المقررة على المدارس الثانوية أمثلة لاتحصى على هذه المهانة التى تعامل بها المرأة المسلمة، فيكفى أن نقرأ صفحة 125 من كتاب الروض المربع بأن الزوج لايلزمه كفن إمرأته أى ليس واجباً عليه دفع ثمن كفن زوجته!، أما السبب فيورده الكتاب قائلاً" لأن الكسوة وجبت عليه بالزوجية والتمكن من الإستمتاع وقد إنقطع ذلك بالموت "، يعنى تخيلوا معايا الست اللى عاشت تخدم الراجل عمرها كله مش ضرورى يدفع لها الكفن لأنه تزوجها علشان المتعة فقط!، وفى نفس الكتاب تحت عنوان النفقات نقرأ "لا يلزم الزوج لزوجته دواء وأجرة طبيب إذا مرضت لأن ذلك ليس من حاجتها الضرورية المعتادة، وفى ص 355 له أن يمنعها من حضور جنازة أبيها أو أمها ومنعها من إرضاع ولدها من غيره يعنى ببساطة ممارسة سادية وخلاص، وله أيضاً أن يضربها ضرباً غير مبرح عندما ترد عليه بتبرم، وعارفين الضرب غير المبرح الذى يقرره الكتاب إنه عشرة أسواط يعنى أقل من دستة كرابيج!، وطبعاً ديتها نصف دية الرجل ص 417، وحتى العقيقة أقل، ففى الذكر شاتان وفى الجارية شاة، أما فى باب عشرة النساء فستقرأ العجب العجاب، فعن عدد مرات الجماع يقول الكتاب " يلزمه الوطء إن قدر عليه كل ثلث سنة مرة " يعنى كل أربعة شهور ولو عاجبها وليس لها أن تعترض، ويجيز الكتاب التزوج بفتاة عمرها أقل من تسع سنين ص 370، وتمتلئ الكتب المقررة بكلام كثير ومفصل عن الجوارى وأحكام الزواج منهن وديتهن وعوراتهن التى تختلف عن عورة الحرة 000الخ، وأغرب ماقرأته عن الزواج كان تفضيل الزوجة يتيمة الأم وليست يتيمة الأب لأن الأم تفسد الزوجة، وبالطبع يضيق المجال عن ذكر كوارث أخرى فيما يخص المرأة والله يكون فى عون تلميذات الأزهر اللاتى تتم إهانتهن ومرمطتهن فى هذه الكتب كل حصة.
4-التمييز الدينى العنصرى : [ فى هذا الوقت الحساس وفى هذا الجو المتوتر نجد كتباً مليئة بالإستفزاز والشحن ضد الآخر وخاصة مايسمونه بالذمى، والتمييز صفة غالبة فى هذه الكتب تبدأ بتمييز القرشى عن كافة البشر ففى الحديث عن الأولى بالإمامة يكون الأقرأ ثم الأفقه فالأسن ثم إذا تساوى السن يتقدم القرشى، وللقرشى أفضليات عديدة فى كتب الفقه، ومن التمييز القبلى إلى التمييز الدينى الأخطر والأفدح، وبعد أن قرأت المكتوب فى هذه الكتب عن الذمى عرفت سبب ماقاله المرحوم مصطفى مشهور مرشد الإخوان المسلمين عن المسيحيين ومنع خدمتهم فى الجيش، وتأكدت أن أصول حديثه موجود على صفحات هذه الكتب الأزهرية، فلو قرأنا المكتوب فى صفحة 199 مثلاً سنعرف السبب، يقول الكتاب فى باب عقد الذمة وأحكامها " معنى عقد الذمة إقرار بعض الكفار على كفرهم بشرط بذل الجزية 000ويمتهنون عند أخذ الجزية ويطال وقوفهم وتجر أيديهم وجوباً لقوله تعالى " وهم صاغرون "، وفى ص 200 يأخذ التمييز الدينى صورة بشعة لو طبقت ستؤدى بالمجتمع إلى التهلكة فيوصى الكتاب بألا يدفنوا فى مقابرنا ولابد من حذف مقدم رؤوسهم وشد الزنار ودخول الحمامات بجلجل أو خاتم رصاص برقابهم ويركبون الحمير لا الأحصنة وبغير سرج، ولايجوز تصديرهم فى المجالس ولا القيام لهم ولا مبادئتهم بالسلام ولاتهنئتهم ولاتعزيتهم أو عيادتهم ويمنعون من إظهار ناقوسهم ويلجئون إلى أضيق الطريق...الخ، وهكذا فعمر عبد الكافى وأمثاله معذورون إذا أفتوا بمثل هذا الكلام المثير المطبوع للبراعم الصغيرة التى من المفروض أن تنهض بالوطن لاأن تؤجج فيه نيران العنصرية، وكيف يطالب شيخ الأزهر الأئمة خريجى جامعاته بألا يصفوا أبناء الديانة اليهودية بأنهم أبناء القردة والخنازير وفى نفس الوقت تحرض هذه الكتب على كراهية أبناء الأديان الأخرى؟!،
وأعتقد أن الشيخ طنطاوى لايوافق على أن تزدحم كتب الفقه بأحكام الرق والعبيد ونحن فى القرن الواحد والعشرين وفى ظل مواثيق حقوق الإنسان التى وقعت عليها مصر، والتفسير موجود عند واحد فقط هو شيخ الأزهر الذى لاأفهم كيف يرضى عن هذا المنهج فى التفكير ؟، وأعتقد أن القوى الرجعية داخل المؤسسة التى يرأسها أقوى من أن يعاندها أو يقف فى مواجهتها فرضخ فى النهاية لمطالبها، ولذلك كتبنا هذا التحقيق على الملأ لتناقش القضية بشكل أوسع لأنها لم تعد قضية شيخ أزهر بل هى قضية مجتمع إما أن تنفتح له أبواب المستقبل أو يظل قابعاً فى كهف الماضى يجتر خرافاته ويموت بأسفكسيا الجهل.
khmontasser2001@yahoo.com

Hejab!

Let's Burn The Burqa
by Taslima Nasrin
My mother used purdah. She wore a burqa with a net cover in front of the face. It reminded me of the meatsafes in my grandmother's house. One had a net door made of cloth, the other of metal. But the objective was the same: keeping the meat safe. My mother was put under a burqa by her conservative family. They told her that wearing a burqa would mean obeying Allah. And if you obey Allah, He would be happy with you and not let you burn in hellfire. My mother was afraid of Allah and also of her own father. He would threaten her with grave consequences if she didn't wear the burqa. Women too have sexual urges. So why didn't Allah start the purdah for men? Clearly, He treated them on unequal terms. She was also afraid of the men in the neighbourhood, who could have shamed her. Even her husband was a source of fear, for he could do anything to her if she disobeyed him.
As a young girl, I used to nag her: Ma, don't you suffocate in this veil? Don't you feel all dark inside? Don't you feel breathless? Don't you feel angry? Don't you ever feel like throwing it off? My mother kept mum. She couldn't do anything about it. But I did. When I was sixteen, I was presented a burqa by one of my relatives. I threw it away.
The custom of purdah is not new. It dates back to 300 BC. The women of aristocratic Assyrian families used purdah. Ordinary women and prostitutes were not allowed purdah. In the middle ages, even Anglo-Saxon women used to cover their hair and chin and hide their faces behind a cloth or similar object. This purdah system was obviously not religious. The religious purdah is used by Catholic nuns and Mormons, though for the latter only during religious ceremonies and rituals. For Muslim women, however, such religious purdah is not limited to specific rituals but mandatory for their daily life outside the purview of religion.
A couple of months ago, at the height of the purdah controversy, Shabana Azmi asserted that the Quran doesn't say anything about wearing the burqa. She's mistaken. This is what the Quran says:
"Tell the faithful women that they must keep their gaze focused below/on the ground and cover their sexual organs. They must not put their beauty and their jewellery on display. They must hide their breasts behind a purdah. They must not exhibit their beauty to anybody except their husbands, brothers, nephews, womenfolk, servants, eunuch employees and children. They must not move their legs briskly while walking because then much of their bodies can get exposed." (Sura Al Noor 24:31)
"Oh nabi, please tell your wives and daughters and faithful women to wear a covering dress on their bodies. That would be good. Then nobody can recognise them and harrass them. Allah is merciful and kind." (Sura Al Hijaab 33: 59)
Even the Hadis --a collection of the words of Prophet Mohammed, his opinion on various subjects and also about his work, written by those close to him-- talks extensively of the purdah for women. Women must cover their whole body before going out, they should not go before unknown men, they should not go to the mosque to read the namaaz, they should not go for any funeral.
There are many views on why and how the Islamic purdah started. One view has it that Prophet Mohammed became very poor after spending all the wealth of his first wife. At that time, in Arabia, the poor had to go to the open desert and plains for relieving themselves and even their sexual needs. The Prophet's wives too had to do the same. He had told his wives that "I give you permission to go out and carry out your natural work". (Bukhari Hadis first volume book 4 No. 149). And this is what his wives started doing accordingly. One day, Prophet Mohammed's disciple Uman complained to him that these women were very uncomfortable because they were instantly recognisable while relieving themselves.
Umar proposed a cover but Prophet Mohammed ignored it. Then the Prophet asked Allah for advice and he laid down the Ayat (33:59) (Bukhari Hadis Book 026 No. 5397).
This is the history of the purdah, according to the Hadis. But the question is: since Arab men too relieved themselves in the open, why didn't Allah start the purdah for men? Clearly, Allah doesn't treat men and women as equals, else there would be purdah for both! Men are higher than women. So women have to be made walking prisons and men can remain free birds.
Another view is that the purdah was introduced to separate women from servants. This originates from stories in the Hadis. One story in the Bukhari Hadis goes thus: After winning the Khyber War, Prophet Mohammed took over all the properties of the enemy, including their women. One of these women was called Safia. One of the Prophet's disciples sought to know her status. He replied: "If tomorrow you see that Safia is going around covered, under purdah, then she is going to be a wife. If you see her uncovered, that means I've decided to make her my servant."
The third view comes from this story. Prophet Mohammed's wife Ayesha was very beautiful. His friends were often found staring at her with fascination. This clearly upset the Prophet. So the Quran has an Ayat that says, "Oh friends of the prophet or holy men, never go to your friend's house without an invitation. And if you do go, don't go and ask anything of their wives". It is to resist the greedy eyes of friends, disciples or male guests that the purdah system came into being. First it was applicable to only the wives of the holy men, and later it was extended to all Muslim women. Purdah means covering the entire body except for the eyes, wrist and feet. Nowadays, some women practise the purdah by only covering their hair. That is not what is written in the Hadis Quran. Frankly, covering just the hair is not Islamic purdah in the strict sense.
In the early Islamic period, Prophet Mohammed started the practice of covering the feet of women. Within 100 years of his death, purdah spread across the entire Middle East. Women were covered by an extra layer of clothing. They were forbidden to go out of the house, or in front of unknown men. Their lives were hemmed into a tight regime: stay at home, cook, clean the house, bear children and bring them up. In this way, one section of the people was separated by purdah, quarantined and covered.
Why are women covered? Because they are sex objects. Because when men see them, they are roused. Why should women have to be penalised for men's sexual problems? Even women have sexual urges. But men are not covered for that. In no religion formulated by men are women considered to have a separate existence, or as human beings having desires and opinions separate from men's. The purdah rules humiliate not only women but men too. If women walk about without purdah, it's as if men will look at them with lustful eyes, or pounce on them, or rape them. Do they lose all their senses when they see any woman without burqa?
My question to Shabana and her supporters, who argue that the Quran says nothing about purdah is: If the Quran advises women to use purdah, should they do so? My answer is, No. Irrespective of which book says it, which person advises, whoever commands, women should not have purdah. No veil, no chador, no hijab, no burqa, no headscarf. Women should not use any of these things because all these are instruments of disrespect. These are symbols of women's oppression. Through them, women are told that they are but the property of men, objects for their use. These coverings are used to keep women passive and submissive. Women are told to wear them so that they cannot exist with their self-respect, honour, confidence, separate identity, own opinion and ideals intact.So that they cannot stand on their own two feet and live with their head held high and their spine strong and erect.
Some 1,500 years ago, it was decided for an individual's personal reasons that women should have purdah and since then millions of Muslim women all over the world have had to suffer it. So many old customs have died a natural death, but not purdah. Instead, of late, there has been a mad craze to revive it. Covering a woman's head means covering her brain and ensuring that it doesn't work. If women's brains worked properly, they'd have long ago thrown off these veils and burqas imposed on them by a religious and patriarchal regime.
What should women do? They should protest against this discrimination. They should proclaim a war against the wrongs and ill-treatment meted out to them for hundreds of years. They should snatch from the men their freedom and their rights. They should throw away this apparel of discrimination and burn their burqas.

http://taslimanasrin.com/tn_bio.html

الثلاثاء، 22 مايو، 2007

What more can we say!

May 23, 2007 Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) --
One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida, a poll says. The survey by the Pew Research Center, one of the most exhaustive ever of the country's Muslims, revealed a community that in many ways blends comfortably into society. Its largely mainstream members express nearly as much happiness with their lives and communities as the general public does, show a broad willingness to adopt American customs, and have income and education levels similar to others in the U.S. Even so, the survey revealed noteworthy pockets of discontent. While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely. That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely. "It is a hair-raising number," said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy. He said most supporters of the attacks likely assumed the context was a fight against occupation -- a term Muslims often use to describe the conflict with Israel. U.S. Muslims have growing Internet and television access to extreme ideologies, he said, adding: "People, especially younger people, are susceptible to these ideas." Federal officials have warned that the U.S. must be on guard against homegrown terrorism, as the British suffered with the London transit bombings of 2005. Even so, U.S. Muslims are far less accepting of suicide attacks than Muslims in many other nations. In surveys Pew conducted last year, support in some Muslim countries exceeded 50 percent, while it was considered justifiable by about one in four Muslims in Britain and Spain, and one in three in France. "We have crazies just like other faiths have them," said Eide Alawan, who directs interfaith outreach at the Islamic Center of America, one of the largest mosques in the U.S. He said killing innocent people contradicts Islam. Andrew Kohut, Pew director, said in an interview that support for the attacks represented "one of the few trouble spots" in the survey. At a later news conference, he said much of that support could be attributed to age because the findings were consistent with numerous other surveys showing young people more inclined to violence and to support wars. The poll briefly describes the rationales for and against "suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets" and then asks, "Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?" The question did not specify where a suicide attack might occur, who might carry it out or what was meant by using a bombing to "defend Islam." Those of all ages who backed at least some suicide attacks were about evenly divided between men and women, with support stronger from those who were born in the United States and less educated and those who attend mosques at least weekly. In other findings: --Only 5 percent of U.S. Muslims expressed favorable views of the terrorist group al-Qaida, though about a fourth did not express an opinion. --Six in 10 said they are concerned about a rise in Islamic extremism in the U.S., while three in four expressed similar worries about extremism around the world. --Yet only one in four consider the U.S. struggle against terrorism a sincere attempt to curtail international terror. Only 40 percent said they believe Arab men carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. --By six to one, they say the U.S. was wrong to invade Iraq, while a third say the same about Afghanistan -- far deeper than the opposition expressed by the general U.S. public. --Just over half said it has been harder being a U.S. Muslim since the Sept. 11 attacks, especially the better educated, higher income, more religious and young. Nearly a third of those who flew in the past year say they underwent extra screening because they are Muslim. --Forty-seven percent said they consider themselves Muslim first, rather than American. Forty-two percent of Christians and 62 percent of white evangelical Protestants identified themselves primarily by their religion in earlier surveys. The survey estimates there are roughly 2.35 million Muslim Americans. It found that among adults, two-thirds are from abroad while a fifth are U.S.-born blacks. By law, the Census Bureau does not ask about people's religions. Telephone interviews were conducted with 1,050 Muslim adults from January through April, including some in Arabic, Urdu and Farsi. Subjects were chosen at random, from a separate list of households including some with Muslim-sounding names, and from Muslim households that had participated in previous surveys. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 5 percentage points

once more to breastfeed adults!

Adult breast-feeding sucks, authorities say
May 22 2007 at 07:03AM
Cairo, Egypt - Al-Azhar University, one of Sunni Islam's most prestigious institutions, ordered one of its clerics Monday to face a disciplinary panel after he issued a controversial decree allowing adults to breast-feed.Ezzat Attiya had issued a fatwa, or religious edict, saying adult men could breast-feed from female work colleagues as a way to avoid breaking Islamic rules that forbid men and women from being alone together.In Islamic tradition, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers. It means the child could not marry the nursing woman's biological children.
top.DisplayAds('SquarLAV',12,3);

Attiya - the head of Al-Azhar's department of Hadith, or teachings of the Prophet Muhammad - insisted the same would apply with adults. He argued that if a man nursed from a co-worker, it would establish a family bond between them and allow the two to work side-by-side without raising suspicion of an illicit sexual relation.His fatwa raised a widespread outcry in Egypt, with religious authorities rejecting the edit and several newspapers deriding Attiya for issuing it. Several lawmakers called for Attiya to be punished.The president of the Al Azhar University, Ahmed al-Tayeb, ordered Attiya on Monday to stand before a disciplinary tribunal and denounced the fatwa as defamatory to Islam.Attiya had initially stood by his fatwa, but on Sunday he backtracked an apologised for the controversy. He said his fatwa was "only an opinion based on one incident".Attiya based his fatwa on "hadith," or teaching of Muhammad. In the hadith, Mohammad reportedly told a woman to nurse a teenage boy who was not her own but whom she had raised in order to establish a family bond. But many Islamic scholars deny the hadith, saying it is not verified and should not be used.Egyptian Religious Affairs Minister Mahmoud Zaqzouq said on Monday that fatwas "should be compatible with logic and human nature."Strict Islamic interpretations forbid an unmarried man and woman to be alone together. But with women in the workplace, the situation is generally accepted in Egypt and much of the Muslim world.- Sapa-AP

The Breast-Feeding of Adults

Revisiting the Issue of Islam and the Nursing of Adults
EXPOSING THE MISINFORMATION OF MUSLIM CRITICS
Sam Shamoun
Some months ago, I published a paper discussing a number of Islamic traditions speaking about the breast-feeding of adults. In response the Muslim critics/polemicists Hesham Azmy and Usman Sheikh (a.k.a. Johnny Bravo) have written a very scathing personal attack upon me, calling my interpretation and discussion of these Islamic traditions merely the product of my "perverted" mind.
In their paper, they also attempt to give these traditions a completely different meaning. Despite the strong disagreement of what these traditions really say, I am glad to see that Hesham Azmy and Usman Sheikh agree with me that such actions as described in my earlier paper are indeed sick and perverted. Whether these traditions are as innocent as these two Muslim writers now claim, and the perversion was only in my mind, or whether these acts of perversion are genuinely part of Islam will be discussed in this paper. We will focus on addressing whether they were successful in proving me wrong by showing that this perversion was merely my imagination, or whether their rebuttal paper was simply an attempt of covering up the dark aspects of a perverted religion.
Our readers can access their "rebuttal" at these two Muslim websites:
http://bismikaallahuma.org/Hadith/Exegesis/nursing.htmhttp://www.geocities.com/noorullahwebsite/shamoun-nursing.html
We proceed with an evaluation and response to their arguments.
THE AUTHORS' USE OF AD HOMINEM
The very abusive and foul nature of the Muslim response article shows that my original paper has really struck a nerve. The authors were obviously very angry with me and saw no other solution than to go on an ad hominem rampage. That's fine. We are mature enough to handle such heat and will simply ignore it for the most part. In the long run, the only effect of personal attacks is to expose a person's inability to deal intellectually with the arguments set before him.
The real issue here is not their insults or ad hominem arguments, but whether as a result of my "perverted" mind I have misunderstood the hadiths and read into them things not stated. The authors claim that the only way I can justify my perverted understanding of these hadiths is if I can show that others understood them in the same way:
... It is crystal-clear that this missionary did not derive his filthy interpretation from any Islamic source, rather, it came from his equally filthy mind.
In order for his argument to carry at least a little weight, the missionary needs to demonstrate to the readers that others besides him had also misunderstood the tradition in question, in exactly the same way as he did (note that quoting his fellow missionaries proves nothing other than that they are as perverted as he is). HOWEVER, WE ARE 100% CERTAIN THAT HE IS ABOUT THE ONLY PERSON ON THIS PLANET WHO HAS EVER MISUNDERSTOOD THE MEANING OF SUCH A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD TRADITION. Therefore his lack of comprehension and the pervert nature of his feeble mind does not prove anything against Islam. That is to say that if Sam Shamoun cannot understand and comprehend an issue, then that proves nothing against Islam other than to demonstrate his own lack of intelligence, more so when he is the only individual who seems to have had a "problem" with the passage and got "confused" with its intended meaning. (bold and capital emphasis ours)
How is it that the words ‘suckling’ and ‘nursing,’ prevalent in the traditions I quoted in the original article, can be taken as ANYTHING BUT LITERAL BREAST-FEEDING!? The authors go on to quote a source trying to prove that this is allegedly referring to placing the milk in a container, but this is nowhere evident in any of the traditions from which I quoted. Furthermore, I will demonstrate below how others drew the same conclusions that I did. These hadiths clearly convey the idea of literal breast-feeding, as I think anybody looking at the traditions objectively should be able to CLEARLY see. It is the burden of the authors to demonstrate that their forced understanding, coming from what we will demonstrate to be a dubious source, is correct. The natural reading based on the traditions is clearly referring to literal breast-feeding.
With that being said, let's see whether or not it is really true (as the authors claim) that I am the only one who allegedly "misunderstood" the hadiths and saw perverted things nowhere stated within these narrations? Let us see:
... The Prophet (may peace and blessing be upon him) said: Give him your BREAST-FEED. SHE GAVE HIM FIVE BREAST-FEEDS. He then became like her foster-son. (Sunan Abu Dawud English Translation with Explanatory Notes, by Prof. Ahmad Hasan [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters; Lahore, Pakistan, 1984], Volume II, Book V (Kitab al-Nikah), Number 2056)
The translator evidently had no qualms about implying that Sahla gave Salim five BREAST-FEEDINGS, not breast milk in a cup. He evidently was unaware of Ibn Sa‘d's version!
It must be kept in mind that Sahla had not given birth to Salim, and he was definitely a lot older than 2 years old, accounting for his adoped father's discomfort with his being in the presence of Sahla while she was unveiled. Therefore, it would not have been possible for Sahla to pump her breastmilk into a cup because, unless she had given birth to a child recently, there wouldn’t be any milk in the glands. Thus, this makes it quite clear that Muhammad wanted her to allow Salim to feed off her breast, much like a mother would breast-feed her infant, and that explains her reaction to Muhammad's request.
According to the next hadith the only suckling that makes marriage unlawful is that which comes directly from the breast itself:
Narrated Umm Salamah:Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, "The only suckling which makes marriage unlawful IS THAT WHICH IS TAKEN FROM THE BREAST and enters the bowels, and is taken before the time of weaning." Tirmidhi transmitted it. (Tirmidhi, Hadith Number 944 taken from the ALIM CD-Rom)
This is further supported by the word used in the hadiths to describe the action of suckling, namely redha'a. The following online Arabic-English Dictionary defines it as:
nursing, suckling, suck (Al-Qamoos)
Here is another:
Redha'a: Breast Sucking. (Source; see also here)
Now the authors may claim that this refers only to the weaning period of a child and not applicable to men. Well, let us see what this next Muslim has to say (even though he is a Shia):
One of the methods for a person to become "Mahram" (intimate; forbidden to marry) is through fosterage. A woman may suckle the child and become her foster-mother when the child is less than two years old. It is forbidden for a female to show any parts of her body such as breasts, chest, hair, and so on, to a grown male who is not Mahram. However, Aisha claimed that a woman can suckle a grown up man who understands sexuality and has even beard! For a female who wants to suckle such adult male for the first time, SHE MUST DO THE FOLLOWING:
1) To allow this grown-up man to enter her house,
2) TO OPEN HER CLOTHES INTENTIONALLY (by the intention of suckling)
3) TO ALLOW SUCH STRANGER ADULT TO SEE PARTS OF HER BODY, CHEST, BREASTS, AND SO ON,
4) TO ALLOW THIS MAN TO TOUCH HER BODY.
This is for the first time when the person in question is not Mahram as yet based on the Fatwa of Aisha, he will become Mahram after being suckled, and nothing would be wrong! Here are some traditions from Aisha attributing SUCH A SHAMEFUL THING to the Prophet:
Aisha reported that Sahla Bint Suhail came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, I see on the face of Abu Hudhaifa (signs of disgust) on entering of Salim (who is an ally) into (our house), whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man? Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) smiled and said: I already know that he is a young man. Amr has made this addition in his narration that he participated in the Battle of Badr and in the narration of Ibn Umar (the words are): Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) laughed.
Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, Chapter DLXVI, titled: Suckling a Young boy, Tradition #3424.
Ibn Abu Mulaika reported that al-Qasim Ibn Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr had narrated to him that Aisha reported that Sahla Bint Suhail Ibn Amr came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, Salim (the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa) is living with us in our house, and he has attained (puberty) as men attain it and has acquired knowledge (of the sex problems) as men acquire, whereupon he said: Suckle him so that he may become unlawful (in regard to marriage) for you. He (Ibn Abu Mulaika) said: I refrained from narrating this Hadith for a year or so on account of fear. I then met al-Qasim and said to him: You narrated to me a Hadith which I did not narrate (to anyone) afterwards. He said: What is that? I informed him, whereupon he said: Narrate it on my authority that Aisha had narrated that to me.
Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, Chapter DLXVI, titled: Suckling a Young boy, Tradition #3426.
Zainab daughter of Abu Salama reported: I heard Umm Salama, the wife of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), saying to Aisha: By Allah, I do not like to be seen by a young boy who has passed the period of fosterage, whereupon She (Aisha) said: Why is it so? Sahla daughter of Suhail came to Allah's messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah's messenger, I swear by Allah that I see in the face of Abu Hudhaifa (the signs of disgust) on account of entering of Salim (in the house), whereupon Allah's messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him. She (Sahlah Bint Suhail) said: He has a beard. But he (again) said: Suckle him, and it would remove what is there (expression of disgust) on the face of Abu Hudhaifa. She said: (I did that) and , by Allah, I did not see (any sign of disgust) on the face of Abu Hudhaifa.
Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, Chapter DLXVI, titled: Suckling a Young boy, Tradition #3428.
Umm Salama, the wife of Allah's Apostle, used to say that all wives of Allah's Apostle disclaimed the idea that one with this type of fosterage (having been suckled after the proper period) should come to them... and no one was going to be allowed to enter (our house) with this type of fosterage and we do not subscribe to this view.
Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, Chapter DLXVI, titled: Suckling a Young boy, Tradition #3429.
Aisha herself testified that:
Aisha reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) visited me when a man was sitting near me, and he seemed to disapprove of that. And I saw signs of anger on his face and I said: Messenger of Allah, he is my brother by fosterage, whereupon he said: Consider who your brothers are because of fosterage since fosterage is through hunger (i.e. in infancy).
Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, Chapter DLXVI, titled: Suckling a Young boy, Tradition #3430.
Also al-Bukhari narrated:
Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 3.815Narrated Aisha:
Once the Prophet came to me while a man was in my house. He said, "O Aisha! Who is this (man)?" I replied, "My foster brothers" He said, "O Aisha! Be sure about your foster brothers, as fostership is only valid if it takes place in the suckling period (before two years of age)."
The last three traditions in the above show that the prophet (PBUH&HF) does not approve an adult male to be with his wife (Aisha). He said that fosterage relationship is only possible if the male is less than two years old. These set of traditions are in clear contradiction with the claim of Aisha stated in the early traditions. Besides, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK WHETHER YOU WOULD ALLOW YOUR WIFE TO SUCKLE A GROWN-UP MAN? If no, why do you think that the most honorable man on the earth, the Prophet (PBUH&HF), will allow it?
Regarding the scandal of the above traditions, the translator of Sahih Muslim (Abdul Hamid Siddiqui, Saudi Arabia) wrote in the footnote of the above traditions that:
This Chapter (i.e., suckling a young boy) is one of the most difficult chapters of this book. Fosterage which makes marriage unlawful is only that which has been referred to in the Holy Qur'an: "And the (divorced) mothers may nurse their children for two whole years if they wish to complete the period of nursing." (2:233) It implies that the fosterage within two years of the child's birth is effective in determining the nature of relationship, and that of the subsequent period, and specially in a grown-up age, is NOT effective. This view is held by Imam Shafi'i, Imam Ahmad, Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Muhammad, and is supported on the authority of Ibn Mas'ud, Abu Huraira, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar.
Sunni reference: Footnote of Sahih Muslim, English version, by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui, v2, p43
(Source: A Shi'ite Encyclopedia, Chapter 1a., Part VI; capital emphasis and underline emphasis ours)
Sunni Muslim Moiz Amjad writes:
Keeping the foregoing background in mind, when Abu Hudaifah's wife expressed her concern in front of the Prophet (pbuh), the Prophet (pbuh) realizing the nature of Abu Hudaifah's concern advised his wife to take an action that was likely to take care of Abu Hudaifah's concern. It seems that the advise given by the Prophet (pbuh) to Abu Hudaifah's wife was, in fact, to take some of her milk and give it to Salem, thereby, making Salem a kind of a foster child and, subsequently, removing Abu Hudaifah's concern regarding the issue. HOWEVER, THE INCIDENT, IT SEEMS, HAS BEEN MISREPORTED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT THE PROPHET (pbuh) ADVISED ABU HUDAIFAH'S WIFE TO BREAST-FEED HER GROWN-UP ADOPTED SON. (Source: Understanding Islam; capital emphasis ours)
The two Muslims who accused me of a perverted mind, stated that I needed to find others who viewed these hadiths in a similar manner as I did to prove my case. The above quotations certainly satisfy this criterion. The Shia source quotes those hadiths and does not reinterpret them to mean milk in a cup. The Shia site rejects the hadiths altogether because of the perverted nature of the practice. Also Moiz Amjad, "The Learner", calls it misreported, but he agrees that the narration itself gives this impression.
The authors try to convince their readers that the command to suckle a grown man is completely innocent and that I am at fault for thinking otherwise. In light of this claim the following hadith, which was also used in the Shia encyclopedia, becomes all the more interesting:
Ibn Abu Mulaika reported that al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abu Bakr had narrated to him that 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail b. 'Amr came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, Salim (the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa) is living with us in our house, and he has attained (puberty) as men attain it and has acquired knowledge (of the sex problems) as men acquire, whereupon he said: SUCKLE HIM so that he may become unlawful (in regard to marriage) for you He (Ibn Abu Mulaika) said: I REFRAINED FROM (narrating this hadith) FOR A YEAR OR SO ON ACCOUNT OF FEAR. I then met al-Qasim and said to him: You narrated to me a hadith which I did not narrate (to anyone) afterwards. He said: What is that? I informed him, whereupon he said: Narrate it on my authority that 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) had narrated that to me. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3426; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Here was a man who was afraid to narrate what he had heard and decided to keep this story to himself for a little more than a year! The man obviously didn't share the authors' views regarding the innocence of this story and knew that there was something terribly wrong with this picture. It seems that the Muslim gent wasn't informed that Sahla had placed her breast milk in a cup for Salim to drink.
In light of the foregoing, the preceding Muslims must all be perverts since they too read the same hadiths and walked away with the same understanding that I did. They saw that the natural implication one derives from them is that Sahla breast-fed a young man at the orders of Muhammad.
THE ISNAD/SANAD OF IBN SA‘D'S HADITH
Instead of refuting my conclusions by appealing to the authentic hadith collection which narrated the story of Sahla breast-feeding Salim, the authors based their "response" on Ibn Sa‘d's version. After reading it our readers can see the obvious reason why they did so:
Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar told us: Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdullah, Az-Zuhri’s nephew, told us on authority of his father that he said: an amount of one milk drink was collected in a pot or glass, so Salîm used to drink it every day, for five days. After this, he used to enter at her while her head is uncovered. This was permission from Messenger of Allah to Sahla bint Suhail.[5]
Interestingly, the authors didn't refer to the more popular name of the narrator. They mention the name "Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar" but didn't indicate to the reader that this man is more popularly known as al-Waqidi. What is the Muslim verdict about this man?
Abd Allah Ibn Ali al Madini and his father said: "Al-Waqidi has 20,000 Hadith I never heard of." And then he said: "His narration shouldn't be used" and considered it weak.
Yahya Ibn Muaen said: "Al-Waqidi said 20,000 false hadith about the prophet."
Al-Shafi'i said, "Al-Waqidi is a liar."
Ibn Hanbal said, "Al-Waqidi is a liar."
Al-Bukhari said he didn't write a single letter by Al-Waqidi. (Siar Aalam al nublaa – althagbi – biography of Al-Waqidi)
The following Muslim author writes:
As a report of history, this narration suffers from two fatally serious defects. The first is the UNIVERSALLY RECOGNISED UNTRUSTWORTHINESS OF AL-WAQIDI. Details of his unreliability as a narrator would probably fill several pages, but all of it may be suitably condensed into a statement by Imam ash-Shafi'ee, who was his contemporary, and who knew him personally. Ash-Shafi'ee has the following to say: "In Madeenah there were seven people who used to forge chains of narration. One of them was al-Waqidi."3 (Sources: http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/vicious_unscrupulous_propaganda_of_shiia-2.htm and http://www.ansar.org/english/hasan.htm; bold emphasis ours)
Others say:
Al-Waqidi (130/747-207/822-23), who wrote over twenty works of an historical nature, but only the Kitab al-Maghazi has survived as an independent work. His reputation is marred by the fact that he relied upon story tellers; viz., those who embellished the stories of others. Al-Waqidi did such embellish, such as by adding dates and other details onto the account of Ibn Ishaq (at pages 25-29) (http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/enlightenment/id3.html)
Even the English translator of Ibn Sa'd's work had this to say about al-Waqidi:
... The chain of the narrators is not reliable because the person who narrated to Ibn Sa'd was Waqidi WHO IS NOTORIOUS AS A NARRATOR OF FABRICATED hadithes. The next one Ya'qub is unknown and 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Abd al-Rahman is not a Companion. Consequently this narration is not trustworthy. (Ibn Sa'd's Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, Volume I, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 110 002 India], p. 152, fn. 2; capital emphasis ours)
And the list goes on of those who called him a liar.
Al-Waqidi was also one of those that narrated the story of the Satanic Verses. The most amazing part of this is that the authors' friend, MENJ has a response on the same web site where this rebuttal appears from G.F. Haddad seeking to deny the historicity of the Satanic Verses where he calls into question al-Waqidi's reliability! Here is what Haddad says about al-Waqidi:
[(*) Muhammad ibn `Umar al-Waqidi (d. 207), Ahmad ibn Hanbal said of him: "He is A LIAR." Al-Bukhari and Abu Hatim al-Razi said: "DISCARDED." Ibn `Adi said: "His narrations ARE NOT RETAINED, AND THEIR BANE COMES FROM HIM." Ibn al-Madini said: "HE FORGES HADITHS." Al-Dhahabi said: "CONSENSUS HAS SETTLED OVER HIS DEBILITY." Mizan al-I`tidal (3:662-666 #7993).] (Source: http://bismikaallahuma.org/Polemics/haddad.htm; capital emphasis ours)
It seems that when it is convenient the authors will quote al-Waqidi to support their position, discarding the Muslim scholarly opinion regarding his unreliability. When al-Waqidi fails to serve their purpose the authors are only too glad to call him into question. What is also interesting is the authors' use of Ibn Sa'd. In this article, Azmy claims that Mohammad's murders of Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan, both of which are reported by Ibn Sa'd, are not historical because they do not have isnads. However, we see that Ibn Sa'd is suddenly reliable here since he provides information about an alleged tradition regarding breast milk being placed into containers. This appears to be once again a case of the authors' arbitrarily accepting and rejecting information from their sources, and doing so in whatever way that they feel best suits their purposes. Utilizing such a double standard and practicing such inconsistency appear to be rather hypocritical and neither this paper nor this Muslim site will have much of a chance to get a recommendation for scholarly integrity (cf. also the appendix on plagiarism).
However, we do need to put this in perspective. Al-Waqidi may have been considered a liar without this necessarily implying that everything he reported was a lie. As the following Muslim writes:
Al-Waqidi is reliable for purely historical reports. Ahl al-Hadith consider him too honest and too rich a source to be discarded especially in light of Ibn Sa`d's accreditation, which lent him huge credit--but they unanimously discard him with regard to ahkam reports which are uncorroborated by other narrators e.g. wiggling the index finger in Salat. It is the latter category they meant when they called him a liar, i.e. thoroughly unreliable and/or inaccurate in his isnads, not at all that he was dishonest. Al-Dhahabi said: "I have no doubt in his sidq." And Allah knows best. (Source: http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/f/Al-Waqidi%20and%20Sira.htm; bold emphasis ours)
It may be the case that this narration from al-Waqidi is sound. But the burden of proof is upon the authors to show that it is, especially when the other so-called "sound" collections do not report this version of the story.
The authors have apparently taken most of their stuff, including even their Egyptian joke, from an Arabic webpage, but nowhere indicated that these arguments are not their own but merely a translation of another author's work. This plagiarism will be documented in detail in the appendix. To give our readers an idea of what we are talking about, we reproduce the joke here:
Shamoun's filthy interpretation of the Prophetic permission reminds us of a famous Egyptian joke about an idiot who once wanted to drink hot milk, so he burnt his cow. Shamoun typically thinks like this idiot. If you wanted to drink some cow milk, will you go below the cow and suckle it? Will you put the cow on a fire to heat its milk and then suckle her? If you are Sam Shamoun, the answer must be a YES! Only a filthy idiot diseased with congenital hypothyroidism would think like that! However, this is the only way of thinking familiar to Shamoun's perverted mind.
The false analogy in the authors' joke should be obvious to our readers. Unlike cows, when we are talking about human breast-feeding we assume the direct connection of the mouth to the breast unless we are told otherwise. So their silly comparison is useless as a valid analogy unless the authors want to equivocate Muslim females with cows!
Returning to the issue itself, here is a pronouncement about the breast-feeding of young adults by a well-known Muslim scholar. Sheikh Al-Albani said:
"هل تريد أن تقول هل يرضع منها مباشرة أم بواسطة الكأس، فأنا أقول لم ينقل إلينا فيما علمنا طريقة إرضاع زوجة أبي حذيفة لسالم مولاهم، لم تنقل إلينا الوسيلة ,وأنا أقول شخصيا لا مانع عندي من أن يكون الرضاع مباشرة من – شو يسمو هايدي – (صوت) حلمة. ألباني... فإن تحرج متحرج ما من أن يسمح للرجل الذي المراد تبنيه بطرقة شرعية، يتحرج من أن يرضع من زوجته ولو بالإقتصار على النظر فقط إلى الحلمة مباشرة، فهناك طريقة أخرى بأن ينقل الحليب من ثديها إلى كأس" (Transcribed from audio file: http://www.ansarweb.net/sound/retha3.rm)
Here is a rough translation of the relevant statements from Al-Albani's speech:
"Do you want to say if he is nursed directly from the breast or by a cup? I say we don't have any thing that I know of telling us the way that the wife of Abu Hudhaifa breast-fed Salim; we don't know the way. And I personally say I don't see any objection to his being nursed directly from the nipple ... but if someone ever felt uncomfortable with that — some one getting breast-fed from his wife even if he only sees just the nipple — he could opt for an alternative way and that is through a cup. (emphasis ours)
Since the authors apparently know Arabic they can listen to the entire 12-minute recording of the speech that this statement was taken from. The above passage begins around the 10-minute mark.
It must be kept in mind that Al-Albani is a muhaddith, a scholar in Hadith, and would know the weak narrations from the strong ones. Al-Albani doesn't once appeal to the authors' hadith regarding Sahla placing her milk in a cup for Salim to drink. Unlike the authors, he obviously knew that from a Muslim perspective it was a weak narration and couldn't be used to establish a point.
To appreciate the weight of Al-Albani, note that he was (1) the teacher of Hadith at Medina University from AH 1381 to 1384 [AD 1961-65], (2) chosen by King Khaled Al Saud to be a member of the Grand Council of the Islamic university of Medina AH 1395 [AD 1975], and (3) the winner of the King Faisal Award for the best Islamic scholar (person, character) of the year AH 1419 [AD 1998]. Though he is a somewhat controversial person, many Sunni Muslims consider him to have been the highst authority of Hadith in modern times.
To our authors we need to say, have you ever thought about why you had to look really hard for a single narration written by a person considered to be a liar by your own Muslim ulema to refute our argument? Have you ever asked yourself how far are you willing to go to justify something that you know is completely absurd and perverted? Are you that desperate that you will quote just about anything to cover over the shame and filth of your religion? Remember, it was you who called such an interpretation sick, filthy and perverted.
Implication: Since Al-Albani's interpretation agrees with that of Sam Shamoun, our Muslim authors have basically called the Muslim scholar Sheikh Al-Albani "sick, filthy and perverted" and "demonstrating a lack of intelligence" for not only viewing the narrations in this way, but even more for teaching Muslims that they can follow these traditions today.
WHAT ABOUT AISHA?
In their zeal to commit vicious character slander and ad hominem against me, they forgot to comment on the statements regarding Aisha commanding her family to breast-feed men whom she wanted to allow in her home:
... "Sahla bint Suhayl who was the wife of Abu Hudhayfa, and one of the tribe of Amr ibn Luayy, came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, 'Messenger of Allah! We think of Salim as a son and he comes in to see me while I am uncovered. We only have one room, so what do you think about the situation?' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘Give him five drinks of your milk and he will be mahram by it.’ She then saw him as a foster son. A'isha umm al-muminin TOOK THAT AS A PRECEDENT FOR WHATEVER MEN SHE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO COME TO SEE HER. SHE ORDERED HER SISTER, Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr as-Siddiq AND THE DAUGHTERS OF HER BROTHER TO GIVE MILK TO WHICHEVER MEN SHE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO COME IN AND SEE HER. The rest of the wives of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, refused to let anyone come in to them by such nursing. They said, 'No! By Allah! We think that what the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered Sahla bint Suhayl to do was only an indulgence concerning the nursing of Salim alone. No! By Allah! NO ONE WILL COME IN UPON US BY SUCH NURSING!'
"This is what the wives of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, thought about the suckling of an older person." (Malik's Muwatta, Book 30, Number 30.2.12)
And:
... Hence ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) used to ask the daughters of her sisters and the daughters of her brethren to give him BREAST-FEED five times whom ‘A’ishah wanted to see and who wanted to visit her, though he might be of age: he then visited her. But Umm Salamah and still other wives of the Prophet (may peace be upon him) refused to allow anyone to visit them on the basis OF SUCH BREAST-FEEDING UNLESS ONE WAS GIVEN BREAST-FEEDING DURING INFANCY. They told ‘A’isha: By Allah, we do not know whether that was a special concession granted by the Prophet (may peace be upon him) to Salim exclusive of the people. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume II, Book V, Number 2056)
The foregoing shows that Aisha told her family to breast-feed young men in order to make them lawful to enter Aisha's presence. The authors may accuse me of reading too much into this tradition due to my "perverted" mind. If so, we simply present the Learner's response to a questioner's obvious shock over Aisha issuing such a command:
I found the quotation below in a web site:
"Muslim's Sahih (chapter on nursing the adult) tells us that Sahla bint Suhail complained to Muhammad because her husband, Abu Huzeifa, was envious of his servant, Salem. Muhammad advised Sahla to nurse Salem five times. She protested about Salem's having a beard. But Muhammad advised her to nurse Salem in order to cure her husband of envy, for Aisha used to nurse any man when she and Muhammad thought it was suitable. This tradition is described in detail in Ibn Malik's Muwatta (chapter on nursing the adult)."
This seems like it is a false hadith, BECAUSE AYESHA NEVER HAD A BABY, SO HOW CAN SHE NURSE ANYBODY? Never heard of the concept of nursing adults was Salem a child or an adult? ...
As for the second part of the narrative, IT SEEMS ONLY A CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE MOTHER OF THE BELIEVERS. Firstly, as you have correctly mentioned that being A CHILDLESS WOMAN, IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY FOR HER TO SUCKLE A CHILD. Secondly, the white lie entailed in the narrative becomes apparent merely on the grounds that not even a single person can be named with any degree of certainty from amongst the Muslims who could be claimed to have actually been nursed by the Mother of the believers. The most that can be said is that the Mother of the Believers may, in contrast to the other wives of the Prophet (pbuh), have actually mistakenly generalized the advice given by the Prophet (pbuh) to Abu Hudaifah's wife. This opinion of the Mother of the Believers GAVE HER OPPONENTS A CHANCE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION BY INCORPORATING, IN THE NARRATIVE, THE FABLE OF HER NURSING ALL THOSE WHOM SHE DESIRED TO PERMIT ENTRY INTO HER CHAMBER. (Source: Understanding Islam; capital emphasis ours)
Aisha also gave Umm Salamah, Muhammad's wife, the following advice:
Umm Salama said to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her): A young boy who is at the threshold of puberty comes to you. I, however, do not like that he should come to me, whereupon 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) said: Don't you see in Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) a model for you? She also said: The wife of Abu Hudhaifa said: Messenger of Allah, Salim comes to me and now he is a (grown-up) person, and there is something that (rankles) in the mind of Abu Hudhaifa about him, whereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him (so that he may become your foster-child), and thus he may be able to come to you (freely). (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3427)
Zainab daughter of Abu Salama reported: I heard Umm Salama, the wife of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon himy, saying to 'A'isha: By Allah, I do not like to be seen by a young boy who has passed the period of fosterage, whereupon she ('A'isha) said: Why is it so? Sahla daughter of Suhail came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah's Messenger, I swear by Allah that I see in the face of Abu Hudhaifa (the signs of disgust) on account of entering of Salim (in the house), whereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him. She (Sahla bint Suhail) said: He has a beard. But he (again) said: Suckle him, and it would remove what is there (expression of disgust) on the face of Abu Hudhaifa. She said: (I did that) and, by Allah, I did not see (any sign of disgust) on the face of Abu Hadhaifa. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3428)
In the case of these hadiths, the authors cannot make appeal to breast milk in a cup for a very simple reason. UMM SALAMAH WASN'T WEANING CHILDREN AND THEREFORE HAD NO BREAST MILK TO OFFER SUGGESTING THAT AISHA'S ADVICE COULD ONLY BE CARRIED OUT BY ALLOWING THE MEN TO ACTUALLY FEED FROM THE BREAST ITSELF! Aisha's advice shows that, at least in the case of Umm Salamah, the milk in the cup explanation is untenable.[1]
Some Muslims are astonished at hearing that Aisha gave such advice since it allegedly contradicts Muhammad's claim that breast-feeding is to be done during the weaning period of a child. Note what this other Muslim says in regards to Malik's Hadith on Aisha's advice:
(Note: Firstly, Prophet would never tell someone to nurse an Adult (against islam), secondly who ever wrote this hadith OBVIOUSLTY DOESN'T LIKE "AISHA" BY ATTRIBUTING SUCH RIDICULOUS THINGS TO HER). (Source: http://ropers.hypermart.net/associate/Contributed%20Articles/usman/hadith/hadith-content.html; capital emphasis ours)
The preceding citations from Muslims show the confusion and shock that breast-feeding young men caused. This leads us to our next point.
WHO IS TO BLAME?
Who is to blame for Aisha telling women to suckle men? Who is the real source which led Sahla to perform the embarrassing act of breast-feeding a young man? The following verses show us just who is at fault:
Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters and your sisters and your paternal aunts and your maternal aunts and brothers' daughters and sisters' daughters and your mothers that have suckled you and your foster-sisters and mothers of your wives and your step-daughters who are in your guardianship, (born) of your wives to whom you have gone in, but if you have not gone in to them, there is no blame on you (in marrying them), and the wives of your sons who are of your own loins and that you should have two sisters together, except what has already passed; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. S. 4:23 Shakir
The blame falls squarely on Allah for claiming that suckling produces familial ties. Dr. William Campbell writes:
In the past many cultures believed that what the mother saw or did could also effect the child. 100 years ago in the United States culture, people believed that if a woman saw a rabbit while she was pregnant her child might be born with a split upper lip just like a rabbit or hare. This split upper lip was called a hare-lip because of this mistaken idea, and the word still remains in usage today - even in medical books.
The Qur'an seems to have one of these same ancient ideas. In the Sura of the Women (Al-Nisa') 4:23 from 5-6 AH, there is a long list of women who are prohibited in marriage which includes the following,
"your (foster) mothers who breast-fed you, your (foster) sisters from breast-feeding...the wives of your sons from your loins..." (as opposed to wives of adopted sons which were made legal by Sura 33:37)
It is perfectly clear according to what Dr. Bucaille would call "sure" modern scientific knowledge that inheritance is controlled by the genes we receive from our biological mother and father. There is no other way. No hereditary characteristics are passed through the milk of a wet-nurse. There is no relationship of any kind between a boy who was breast-fed by a wet-nurse and the biological daughter of the wet-nurse, so there is no scientific reason to prohibit these marriages.
We might say that it was just a matter of honor to the wet-nurse, but this does not seem to be the case. Rather it seems based on the belief that breast-feeding makes you a relative. Bukhari, comments on verse 4:23 mentioned above and quotes Muhammad as saying to Aisha, "Nursing produces (the same) interdiction which childbirth produces".[52]
That is, no marriage with milk sisters, but the same freedom to visit them unveiled as that allowed to blood-brothers. God is free to command that which He wishes, but it certainly does not mirror modern genetic understanding. (William Campbell, The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History & Science [Middle East Resources, Second Edition 2002; ISBN 1-881085-03-01], pp. 194-195; http://answering-islam.org/Campbell/s4c2b.html)
The first part of Malik's hadith that was already cited provides an additional reason why Sahla did what she did. Here is the relevant section:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that he was asked about the suckling of an older person. He said, ''Urwa ibn az-Zubayr informed me that Abu Hudhayfa ibn Utba ibn Rabia, one of the companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who was present at Badr, adopted Salim (who is called Salim, the mawla of Abu Hudhayfa) AS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ADOPTED ZAYD IBN HARITHA. He thought of him as his son, and Abu Hudhayfa married him to his brother's sister, Fatima bint al-Walid ibn Utba ibn Rabia, who was at that time among the first emigrants. She was one of the best unmarried women of the Quraysh. When Allah the Exalted sent down in His Book what He sent down about Zayd ibn Haritha, 'Call them after their true fathers. That is more equitable in the sight of Allah. If you do not know who their fathers were then they are your brothers in the deen and your mawali,' (Sura 33 ayat 5) people in this position were traced back to their fathers. When the father was not known, they were traced to their mawla ...
According to the Muslim sources Surah 33:5 was sent down in regards to Muhammad's adopted son Zaid ibn Harith:

This was revealed concerning Zayd bin Harithah, may Allah be pleased with him, the freed servant of the Prophet. The Prophet had adopted him before prophethood, and he was known as Zayd bin Muhammad. Allah wanted to put an end to this naming and attribution ...
This is a command which abrogates the state of affairs that existed at the beginning of Islam, when it was permitted to call adopted sons after the man who adopted them. Then Allah commanded that they should be given back the names of their real fathers, and states that this was more fair and just. Al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated that ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar said: "Zayd bin Muhammad, may Allah be pleased with him, the freed servant of the Messenger of Allah was always called Zayd bin Muhammad, until (the words of the) Qur’an were revealed ...
"
This was also narrated by Muslim, At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa’i. They used to deal with them as sons in every respect, including being alone with them as Mahrams and so on. Hence, Sahlah bint Suhaly, the wife of Abu Hudhayfah, may Allah be pleased with them both, said: "O Messenger of Allah! We used to call Salim our son, but Allah has revealed what He has revealed. He used to enter upon me, but I feel that Abu Hudhayfah does not like that." The Prophet said ...
((BREASTFEED HIM and he will become your Mahram.))
Hence when this ruling was abrogated, Allah made it permissible for a man to marry the ex-wife of his adopted son, and the Messenger of Allah married Zaynab bint Jash, the divorced wife of Zayd bin Harithah, may Allah be pleased with him, Allah said ...
(33:37)
And Allah says in Ayat At-Tahrim ...
(4:23).
The wife of an adopted son is not included because he was not born from the man's loins. A "foster" son through breastfeeding is the same as a son born from one's own loins, from the point of view of the Shari‘ah, because the Prophet said in the Two Sahihs ...
((Suckling makes unlawful as lineage does.)) ...
This is concerning Zayd bin Harithah, may Allah be pleased with him. He was killed in 8 AH at the battle of Mu’tah. In Sahih Muslim it is reported that Anas bin Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "The Messenger of Allah said ...
((O my son.))" It was also reported by Abu Dawud and At-Tirmidhi ...

Here Allah commands that adopted sons should be given back their fathers' names, if they are known; if they are not known, then they should be called brothers in faith or freed servants, to compensate for not knowing what their real lineage is. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 7 (Surat An-Nur to Surat Al-Ahzab, Verse 50), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, London, Lahore; First Edition: August 2000], pp. 634-637; bold and capital emphasis ours)
From the preceding we can deduce the real reason adoption of sons was forbidden. Muhammad needed to be spared from the ridicule of lusting after his adopted son's wife, a lust which caused a rift between husband and wife, resulting in a divorce. After which Muhammad then married the divorcee!
Muhammad Ibn Yahya Ibn Hayyan narrated, "The Messenger of God came to Zaid Ibn Haritha's house seeking him. Perhaps the Messenger of God missed him at that time, that is why he said, 'Where is Zaid?' He went to his house seeking him and, when he did not find him, Zainab Bint Jahsh stood up to [meet] him in a house dress,(2) but the Messenger of God turned away from her. She said, 'He is not here, Messenger of God, so please come in; my father and mother are your ransom.' The Messenger of God refused to come in. Zainab had hurried to dress herself when she heard that the Messenger of God was at her door, so she leapt in a hurry, and the Messenger of God liked her when she did that. He went away muttering something that was hardly understandable but for this sentence: 'Praise be to God who disposes the hearts.' When Zaid came back home, she told him that the Messenger of God came. Zaid asked, 'You asked him to come in, didn't you?' She replied, 'I bade him to, but he refused.' He said, 'Have you heard [him say] anything?' She answered, 'When he had turned away, I heard him say something that I could hardly understand. I heard him say, "Praise be to God who disposes the hearts." ' Zaid went out to the Messenger of God and said, 'O Messenger of God, I learned that you came to my house. Did you come in? O Messenger of God, my father and mother are your ransom. PERHAPS YOU LIKED ZAINAB. I CAN LEAVE HER.' The Messenger of God said, 'Hold on to your wife.' Zaid said, 'O Messenger of God, I WILL LEAVE HER.' The Messenger of God said, 'Keep your wife.' So when Zaid left her, she finished her legal period after she had isolated herself from Zaid. While the Messenger of God was sitting and talking with `A´isha, he was taken in a trance, and when it lifted, he smiled and said, 'Who will go to Zainab to tell her that God wedded her to me from heaven?' The Messenger of God recited, 'Thus you told someone whom God had favoured and whom you yourself have favoured: "Hold on to your wife." ' `A´isha said, 'I heard much about her beauty and, moreover, about how God wedded her from heaven, and I said, "For sure she will boast over this with us." ' Salama, the slave of the Messenger of God, hurried to tell her about that. She gave her some silver jewellery that she was wearing." (Hamdun Dagher, The Position of Women in Islam, Light of Life, 1995, pp. 169-170; online source; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Note 2 reads:
We read the following in a tradition by al-Tabari: "The Messenger of God went out one day seeking him. On Zaid's door was a curtain, which the wind moved to show her unveiled in her chamber. The heart of the Prophet was stricken by admiration for her" (Annals of al-Tabari, 2:453). (ibid., p. 181; bold emphasis ours)
Here, in fact, is an English translation of al-Tabari's Arabic commentary on surah 33:37:
When the exalted Allah said, "Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favor: ‘Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah.’ But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah" this was said by Allah as chastisement to His prophet. For when He said, "one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favor" this was in reference to Zaid son of Haritha who had been set free by the apostle of Allah – prayers and peace be upon him.
When the Exalted Allah said, "Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah" this was concerning Zainab the daughter of Jash whom the prophet –pbuh– had seen in her robes and was enamored by her. Thus when Allah saw what was stirring in His prophet’s soul, he placed hatred in the heart of Zaid towards Zainab that he may depart from her. When Zaid mentioned his intention to separate from Zainab to the prophet, the prophet told him, "Retain thou thy wife" even THOUGH THE PROPHET DESIRED THAT THEY SEPARATE SO THAT HE COULD MARRY HER...
When Allah said, "Thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest," means that the prophet hid in his heart his desire for Zaid to depart from Zainab so that he may marry her, and Allah will reveal what you are concealing in your heart concerning this.
The Almighty said, "Thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah," because Allah was telling the prophet who feared people might say, "He ordered a man to divorce his wife so that he himself may marry her after she is divorced," and Allah aught to be feared more than people.
Narrated by Yunis, narrated by Ibn Wahab, narrated by Ibn Zaid who said, "The prophet –pbuh– had married Zaid son of Haritha to his cousin Zainab daughter of Jahsh. One day the prophet –pbuh– went seeking Zaid in his house, whose door had a curtain made of hair. The wind blew the curtain and the prophet saw Zainab in her room unclothed and he admired her in his heart. When Zainab realized that the prophet desired her SHE BEGAN TO HATE ZAID.
Zaid then came to the prophet –pbuh– and said, "O apostle of Allah, I wish to separate from my mate." The prophet responded, "Why? Has anything evil come from her?" Zaid responded, "No, by Allah! I haven’t seen anything evil from her only good."
The prophet said, "Hold unto your wife and fear Allah." That is what Allah said in the Quran, "Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favor: 'Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah.' But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest." For the prophet was concealing the fact that he would marry Zainab when Zaid had divorced her. (Source; translated by Dimitrius)
We also provide the comments of another renowned Muslim commentator, al-Qurtubi on surah 33:37, translated directly from the Arabic:
Muqatil narrated that the prophet married Zainab daughter of Jahsh to Zaid and she stayed with him for a while. Then one day the prophet –pbuh– came seeking Zaid but he saw Zainab standing; she was white skinned with a beautiful figure and one of the most perfect women in Quraish. So HE DESIRED HER and said, "Wondrous is Allah who changes the heart." When Zaynab heard the prophet’s exaltation of her, she relayed it to Zaid who then understood (what he had to do). Zaid said to the prophet, "O prophet of Allah, allow me to divorce her, for she has become arrogant; seeing herself superior to me and she insults me with her tongue."
The prophet replied, "Hold onto your wife and fear Allah."
It was said that Allah had sent a wind which lifted the curtain to reveal Zainab in her room. When the prophet saw her HE DESIRED HER and it delighted Zainab to be desired by the prophet – pbuh. When Zaid returned home, she informed him of what had happened and Zaid was thus determined to divorce her. (Source; translated by Dimitrius)
Here, also, are Al-Zamakhshari's comments on surah 33:37:
Keep thy wife to thyself: that is, Zainab bint Jahsh. After having given her to Zaid ibn Haritha as a wife, the Messenger of God once caught sight of her, and she made an impression of him. At this sight he said: ‘Praise be to God who changes the heart!’ Previously his soul had turned away from her so that he had not desired her (as a wife). If he had desired her at that time, he would have asked her for her hand in marriage. Now Zainab heard of this praise and mentioned it to (her husband) Zaid, who understood and to whom God gave antipathy against her and aversion to intimacy with her. So Zaid said to the Messenger of God: ‘I might divorce my wife’; to which the latter replied: ‘What is it? Has something filled you with mistrust against her?’ Zaid answered: ‘By God, no! I have observed only good in her; yet her noble rank places her too high above me and causes me to feel hurt.’ Thereupon the Messenger of God said: ‘Keep thy wife to thyself and fear God.’ But Zaid (nevertheless) separated from her, and as soon as the waiting period (during which the wife may enter into no new marriage) had elapsed, the Messenger of God had said (to Zaid): ‘I have no one whom I trust more than you; therefore, seek the hand of Zainab for me!’
Zaid reported: I went forth and there I suddenly found her just as she was leavening some dough. As soon as I saw her she made such an impression on me, since I knew that the Messenger of God had been speaking of her ...
One may ask what the Prophet kept secret within himself. To this I answer: the fact that he was devoted to her in his heart. Others say: the wish that Zaid might separate from her. Still others say: his knowledge that Zaid would separate from her and that he would marry her, for God had already given this knowledge to him ...
(Further) one may ask what the Prophet should have said when Zaid informed him that he wanted to separate from Zainab, since it would have been objectionable if he had said: ‘Do it, for I want to marry her!’ To this I reply: It may perhaps be God's will that in this case he keep silent or say to Zaid: ‘You know your situation best.’ In this manner he would not have contradicted his secret which he (later) indicated had been revealed ... (Helmut Gätje, The Qur'an and its Exegesis [Routledge and Keagan Paul, London UK 1976], pp. 83-85; bold emphasis ours)
We provide one more and final commentary on Muhammad's marriage to Zaynab, this time from modern Muslim author Martin Lings:
Such demands as these upon the Prophet's time were not to be avoided; but there was a growing need that he should be protected in other ways, and the protection that now came was not unconnected with the following altogether unexpected event which served to emphasize his uniquely privileged position. It happened one day that he wanted to speak to Zayd about something and went to his house. Zaynab opened the door, and as she stood in the doorway telling him that Zayd was out but inviting him none the less to enter, a look passed between the two cousins which made each one conscious of a deep and lasting bond of love between them. In a moment the Prophet knew that Zaynab loved him and that he loved her and that she knew he loved her. But what could this mean? Surprised at the strength of his feeling, and as he turned to go she heard him say: "Glory to God the Infinite! Glory be to Him who disposeth men's hearts!" When Zayd returned she told him of the Prophet's visit and of the glorification she had heard him utter. Zayd immediately went to him and said: "I have been told thou camest unto my house. Why didst not enter, thou who art more to me than my father and my mother? Was it that Zaynab hath found favour with thee? If it be so, I will leave her." "Keep thy wife and fear God," said the Prophet with some insistence. He had said on another occasion: "Of all things licit the most hateful unto God is divorce." And when Zayd came again the next day with the same proposal, again the Prophet insisted that he should keep his wife. But the marriage between Zayd and Zaynab had not been a happy one and Zayd found it no longer tolerable, so by mutual agreement with Zaynab he divorced her. This did not, however, make Zaynab eligible as a wife for the Prophet for although the Koran had only specified that men were forbidden to marry the wives of sons spring from their loins, it was a strong social principle not to make a distinction between sons by birth and sons by adoption. Nor was the Prophet himself eligible, for he had already four wives, the most that the Islamic law allows. (Lings, Muhammad: His Life based on the earliest Sources [Inner Traditions International, Ltd., Rochester, Vermont 1983], pp. 212-213; bold and underline emphasis ours)
That this is why Surah 33:5 was "sent down" can be easily seen from Surah 33:37 which states that Allah permitted Muhammad to marry his adopted son's divorcee as an example for others to follow suit. Allah was supposedly showing through Muhammad's example that there was no sin for men to marry their former adopted son's divorced wives. Note what Ibn Kathir says:

means, ‘We permitted you to marry her, and We did that so that there would no longer be any difficulty for the believers with regard to their marrying the ex-wives of their adopted sons.’ Before prophethood, the Messenger of Allah had adopted Zayd bin Harithah, may Allah be pleased with him, and he was known as Zayd, the son of Muhammad. Allah put a stop to this when He said ...
until ...
(33:4-5).
Then this was confirmed and made even clearer by the marriage of the Messenger of Allah to Zaynab bint Jash, may Allah be pleased with her, when Zayd bin Harithah divorced her. (op. cit., p. 698)
But there is one major problem. SURAH 33:5 PROHIBITS MUSLIM MEN FROM ADOPTING SONS! SO HOW COULD MUHAMMD BE AN EXAMPLE FOR OTHERS TO FOLLOW WHEN ALLAH FORBADE THE MUSLIMS FROM HAVING ADOPTED CHILDREN ALTOGETHER?
It is quite obvious that the prohibition of having adopted sons was directed at saving Muhammad from being mocked for doing something that even the pagan Arabs knew was shameful and wicked:
Muhammad's marriage to Zainab, who was the wife of his adopted son, led to many accusations against Muhammad. The dissimulators said, "Muhammad prohibits the wives of the son while he himself marries the wife of his son Zaid." `Abdullah Ibn `Umar narrated: "We have always called him [namely Zaid] Zaid Ibn Muhammad." So this charge that the dissimulators, among others, levelled against Muhammad necessitated the revelation of yet another verse: "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but [he is] God's Messenger and the Seal of the Prophets. God is Aware of everything!" (Sura al-Ahzab 33:40). `Abdullah Ibn `Umar said, "We only called him Zaid Ibn Muhammad till the verse 'Muhammad is not the father of any of your men' was revealed." (Hamdun Dagher, p. 171; bold emphasis ours)
Ibn Kathir agrees with Ibn Umar's statement:

After this it was not permitted to say Zayd bin Muhammad, i.e., he was not his father even though he had adopted him ... (op. cit., p. 701; bold emphasis ours)
Now the authors may claim that Surah 33:37 was revealed before the Quranic prohibition of adopting sons. But if this is the case then it proves our contention that Allah only forbade the adoption of sons in order to spare Muhammad from the humiliation he experienced. If the authors claim that the prohibition of adopting children was given before Surah 33:37 then they are left with the problem of explaining why their god revealed a command that had no practical value seeing that there were no longer any adopted children? In other words how could Surah 33:37 set the precedent for Muslims to marry the divorced spouses of their adopted sons?
Returning to the issue at hand, it was Allah's command forbidding adoption which led to Abu Hudaifah's discomfort over Salim coming near his wife. Because of Allah's command Sahla was forced to give her husband's former adopted son her breast milk in order to ease her husband's discomfort. (Note that according to the translators of Ibn Kathir Sahlah was commanded to BREAST-FEED Salim, not simply give him milk in a cup!)
Hence, Allah, Muhammad's god, is to be blamed for causing all these problems. Allah is also at fault for Aisha telling women to breast-feed grown men since he was the one who supposedly sent down the command regarding foster-relations in 4:23.
This command of Allah was also the reason why jealous wives suckled their husbands' slave girls in order to make it unlawful for their spouses to have sex with them:
Yahya related to me from Malik that Abdullah ibn Dinar said, "A man came to Abdullah ibn Umar when I was with him at the place where judgments were given and asked him about the suckling of an older person. Abdullah ibn Umar replied, ‘A man came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, 'I have a slave-girl and I used to have intercourse with her. My wife went to her AND SUCKLED HER. When I went to the girl, my wife told me to watch out, because she had suckled her!' Umar told him TO BEAT HIS WIFE and to go to his slave-girl because kinship by suckling was only by the suckling of the young.’" (Malik's Muwatta, Book 30, Number 30.2.13)
Allah is to be blamed for this perverted practice which led to confusion, chaos and shame. The saddest thing about all this is that the authors are actually trying to justify this perversion instead of seeing it for what it truly is.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Notes
[1] According to Muslim sources Muhammad married Umm Salamah shortly after her husband's death from wounds suffered during the Battle of Uhud. Umm Salamah had four children from her first husband:
Then the Messenger of God married Umm Salamah, and her name is Hind bt. Abi Umayyah b. Al-Mughirah b. ‘Abdallah b. ‘Umar b. Makhzum. Previously, she was married to Abu Salamah b. ‘Abd al-Asad b. Hilal b. ‘Abdallah b. ‘Umar b. Makhzum, who was present at Badr with the Messenger of God. He was an intrepid warrior of his clan and died of wounds suffered on the day of Uhud. He was the Messenger of God's cousin [son of the Prophet's paternal aunt] and foster brother, whose mother was Barrah bt. ‘Abd al-Muttalib. She bore with him ‘Umar, Salamah, Zaynab, and Durrah. When Abu Salamah died, the Messenger of God said nine takbirahs [during the prayer over him]. When he was asked whether he was distracted or had forgotten [the proper number], he replied, "I was neither distracted nor had I forgotten. Even if I said a thousand takbirahs [during the prayer] over Abu Salamah, he was worthy of it," and he prayed for the surviving members of his family. The Messenger of God married [Umm Salamah] in the year 3/624, before the battle of al-Ahzab. Salamah, son of Abu Salamah, married the daughter of Hamzah b. ‘Abd al-Muttalib. (The History of Al-Tabari, Volume IX, The Last Years of the Prophet, translated and annotated by Ismail K. Poonawala [State University of New York Press, Albany, 1990], p. 132)
And:
Umm Salamah: She married Muhammad (salalahu walayhe wasalam) in the year 4 a.h. She was previously married to Abdullah ibn Abdu'l Asad and they had four children together, Zaynab, Salamah, Umar and Durra. She married Muhammad after becoming a widow and was still nursing Zaynab. She bore no children with Muhammad (salalahu walayhe wasalam). (http://www.positive-action.net/al-yusra/infertility_among_the_mothers_of.htm)
Now the only way the authors can deny my claim is to assert that Aisha gave Umm Salamah this advice while the latter was still weaning her youngest child. The problem with this assertion is that this suggests that Muhammad was still alive when Aisha was telling others to suckle young men that they wanted to enter their homes. The authors would therefore be implying that Muhammad permitted this practice since he said nothing about it, or worse, Aisha was willfully disobeying Muhammad while the latter was still alive and living with her!
The only logical explanation is that Aisha's advice was given after Muhammad died. In other words, this occurred when Umm Salamah had no weaning children and no more breast milk to put in a cup, demonstrating that Aisha was actually advising women to allow men to suckle their breasts!
The authors may wish to argue that, as in the case of Aisha, Umm Salamah could have asked a near relative of hers to do the breast-feeding for her. The burden of proof would be upon the authors to show that this is how Umm Salamah would have understood Aisha's advice in light of the fact that the latter used the example of Sahla's breast-feeding Salim to justify her position. Especially when Umm Salamah is said to have narrated the following tradition (quoted earlier):
Narrated Umm Salamah:Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, "The only suckling which makes marriage unlawful IS THAT WHICH IS TAKEN FROM THE BREAST and enters the bowels, and is taken before the time of weaning." Tirmidhi transmitted it. (Tirmidhi, Hadith Number 944 taken from the ALIM CD-Rom)

Appendix
THE PLAGIARISM AND THE LIES OF THE MUSLIM AUTHORS
Hesham Azmy and Usman Sheikh made it a big point that "this missionary did not derive his filthy interpretation from any Islamic source" and that they "are 100% certain that he is about the only person on this planet who has ever misunderstood the meaning of such a simple, straightforward tradition" (see their full statement above). We have already shown that they are wrong in this since there are plenty of Muslims from the Shia and the Sunni branch of Islam who have understood these traditions in exactly the same way, some rejecting the traditions as not possibly authentic, some accepting them as genuine but "difficult", and at least one well-known Muslim scholar even teaching about the nursing of adults as an acceptable practice for today (Sheikh Al-Albani).
In addition to being factually wrong, there are also two serious ethical problems with this Muslim article, the first is plagiarism and the second deliberate lying. Although there are plenty of articles on various Muslim websites which consist of claims and quotations only, without any documentation as to the sources, our present authors do not belong to this kind of writers. For their section on the nursing of adults we find 14 footnotes with references carefully documenting their quotations from the Muslim sources, i.e. the traditions (ahadith) and the commentaries (tafsir). However, they failed to mention that the substance of their article is nearly entirely taken from an Arabic webpage and is merely a translation of the work of another author. Presenting the work of somebody else as if it was one's own original research is called PLAGIARISM and is a serious violation of the ethical standards in academia.
It is obvious why they would not want to admit that they are translating another person's work and only added to it some personalized insults to Sam Shamoun since this original article was written before Sam Shamoun's article was published and does not make any reference to him. This in itself is conclusive proof that there are others who have understood these traditions the same way as Sam Shamoun, since otherwise there would not have been any need to write this Arabic refutation in the first place. Thus their claim to be certain that nobody else ever understood these traditions in this way was not a statement made out of ignorance, i.e. not knowing of anyone with this understanding, but it was a conscious and deliberate lie in order to deceive the readers of their article. The following table will list the parallel passages to show the extent of their plagiarism.
English Article by Azmy & SheikhOriginal Arabic Article


English Article by Azmy & Sheikh
Original Arabic Article by Derballa
[Shamoun’s filthy interpretation of the Prophetic] permission reminds us of a famous Egyptian joke about an idiot who once wanted to drink hot milk, so he burnt his cow.
الاجابة علي هذا السؤال تذكرني بالنكتة مصرية التي تقول (ان رجلا اراد شرب اللبن البقري ساخنا فاشعل النار في البقرة)
If you wanted to drink some cow milk, will you go below the cow and suckle it?
فهل يشترط لمن يشرب اللبن البقري او الجاموسي انه ينزل تحت الجاموسة ليشرب مباشرة من ثديها؟؟!!!
Direct contact is not necessary for nursing. In other words, the milk is collected in a cup or pot and the foster son drinks it without getting into close contact with the foster mother. This was what actually happened in the case of Sahlâ bint Suhâil and Salîm, as reported by Muhamad Ibn Sa'âd and Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalâni in their respective biographies of Sahlâ bint Suhâil:
عموما نقول ان مباشرته للمرأة غير وارد و انما يتم حلب اللبن و يشربه دون ان يري عورتها , وما ثبت بخصوص رضاعة سالم و هو كبير من قبل التي ربته سهلة بنت سهيل هو انها حلبت لبنها في وعاء وأعطته ليشرب من الوعاء و هذا ثابت في طبقات ابن سعد ترجمة سهلة بنت سهيل.
Why Was the Nursing of Adults Permitted?
2- لماذا جاء الاسلام برضاعة الكبير؟؟؟
The reader of this report can easily recognize that Salîm used to enter Sahlâ's home when he was her adopted son, but when Islam forbade the adoption, a transitional phase was necessary because Salîm was like a real son to Sahlâ and it was difficult for her to push him away as a stranger.
الناظر لحديث سهلة سيعرف لماذا ؟
لان سهلة نفسها تقول ان سالم كان يدخل عليهم (اي انه كان ابنها بالتبني) فلما حرّم الاسلام هذا التبني كان لابد من مرحلة انتقاليه.
كذلك سهلة هي التي قامت بتربية سالم فكان عندها مثل ولدها و عز عليها فراقه.
Was this permission for Sahlâ alone? We tend to say: "Yes!" because the general Islamic view is that there is no effective nursing after the first two years of age. Our proof is the report on the authority of 'Aishâ herself.
3- هل معني ذلك ان الامر كان خاصا بسهلة ؟؟
انقسمت الارآء علي ثلاث :
منهم من رأي ان الامر كان خاص بسهلة فقط.
منهم من راي ان الامر كان لمن كان له مثل حالها و للراي الاول و الثاني ذهبت ام سلمة و سائر زوجات النبي.
منهم من راي ان الامر مطلق (والي هذا ذهبت ام المؤمنين عائشة)
Is the Nursing of Adults Permitted Now?
The obvious answer to this question is "No!", for nursing which leads to fosterage is effective only in the first two years of age.
4- هل تحل رضاعة الكبير الان ؟؟؟
لا تحل و الدليل انها لا تحل بعد الحولين ما قاله :
‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib
Ibn ‘Abbâs
Ibn Mas’ud
Gaber
Abu Huraîra
Ibn ‘Umar
Umm Salam,
Sa’id Ibn-ul-Musayyîb
‘Atâ
Sufyan Ath-Thawrî
Mâlîk
Ash-Shâfi'î
Ahmad Ibn Hanbâl
Ishâq
علي ابن ابي طالب
ابن عباس
ابن مسعود
جابر
ابي هريرة
ابن عمر
ام سلمة
سعيد بن المسيب
عطاء
الثوري
مالك ( رغم انه اخرج الحديث في الموطأ )
الشافعي
احمد
اسحاق

Imam Abu Hanifah is reported to have allowed …. but his chief disciples Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Ash-Shaybani disagreed with this view and joined the above authorities. All scholars of Abu Hanifah’s madhâb (i.e., school of thought) follow the view of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Ash-Shaybani
اما ابو حنيفة فخالف و رده تلامذته ( ابو يوسف و محمد ) و علي رأي ابو يوسف و محمد الذي هو التحريم يدور مذهب الاحناف.
The translation is not literal in every aspect. The English "authors" altered it the way they wanted it, adapting it as response to the article they wanted to rebut, but to anyone knowing both languages, it is entirely obvious that this is the source. The changes are minor. They also went ahead and extended it slightly, for example stating the correct full names of the scholars. The Arabic article refers to them in merely an abbreviated way since Arab Muslims are expected to know them. Furthermore, the English "authors" added the text of the hadiths where the Arabic original just gives the reference for them