Adult Breastfeeding in Islam — The Case of Salim, the Prohibition of Adoption, and the Christian Double Standard

The controversy over adult breastfeeding in Islam is not a story about vulgarity — it is a story about what happens when a divinely ordered system replaces a socially destructive one, and the edge cases that must be resolved along the way.

Ignorant Christians, along with some pseudo-scholars among paid Muslims, often brag about what is called the breastfeeding of adults in Islam, and claim that Islam has reached the level of vulgarity with the fatwa of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, to an adult companion to breastfeed from a foreign woman so that she would be forbidden to him, so that he could live in her house as one of her sons whom she had raised. We often see a Christian rabble-rouser raging and floundering about this issue, even though their books and literature are not without urging the breastfeeding of adults, as we will see. In fact, the story is different from what these polemicists claim — it is entirely the result of the effects that resulted from the ruling prohibiting adoption.

---

The Quranic Prohibition of Adoption — The Root of the Issue

The Quranic verse clarifies an inescapable truth, which is that the adopted person is neither a biological son nor a real one; rather, he is only an adopted son. As Al-Qurtubi explains in his authoritative commentary: “The adopted son is the plural of the adopted son, which is the one who is claimed to be the son of someone other than his father, or claims someone other than his father. The source is the call with the kasra, so Allah the Most High commanded the adoption of the adopted son to their biological fathers.” [Al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami’ li Ahkam Al-Qur’an, Vol. 14/p. 121].

Adoption does not create a relationship of blood, kinship, marriage, or breastfeeding — the very relationships that play a decisive role in prohibiting certain marriages and in the emergence and establishment of fundamental rights. In addition, adoption distorts and destroys these relationships that are created by the bond of lineage and on the basis of the marriage contract between a man and a woman. The controls of the marriage contract in Islamic law are the basis for the emergence of bonds of kinship, marriage, and breastfeeding, and preserving lineage is the foundation of construction. The family, with all its networks and bonds of kinship, marriage, and breastfeeding, is built on the basis of the marriage contract, and lineage is raised by it as a complete structure.

In adoption, an element foreign and abnormal to the family structure enters — an element that becomes a reason for the demolition of the entire structure, causing the bonds of the network to dissolve and the rules regulating marriage to collapse. The objectives of the legislation of inheritance are also lost due to the conflict between the intruding element — the pretender — and the real elements of the family. Since the adoption system in the pre-Islamic era did not prevent the adopted from inheriting from his adopter, Islamic law came to prohibit this system and did not leave inheritance as a vehicle for every rider. Rather, it defined its reasons and controlled its obstacles.

The reasons for inheritance became marriage and kinship. In the context of prohibiting some marriages, the prohibition of marrying the wife of a biological son came — not an adopted one. In invalidating the adoption system, its provisions were also invalidated, including the prohibition of marriage to the adopted son’s wife. The wisdom of Allah Almighty came to invalidate that and make her lawful for marriage, as the Lord of Glory declared:

If we pause and reflect on this point — which is the prohibition of the Arabs in the pre-Islamic era from marrying the wife of an adopted son — we will reach a very significant conclusion: the great status that the adopted son occupied in the heart of his adopter; this son who did not know his father. And this is the first fact.

As for the second fact, which stands opposite to that and at the same time completely contradicts it, it is the extent of the Arabs’ pride in lineage at that time. Between this attachment to an adopted son and the simultaneous pride in blood lineage, there was a stark contradiction that pre-Islamic society lived — a contradiction suggesting the extent of the instability and weakness that characterized that society. Therefore, the adoption system was prohibited for the purpose of restoring cohesion to society, rebuilding ties, and strengthening them with controls that cannot be violated because they were legislated by the Almighty.

Establishing a relationship of fatherhood or sonship through the word of mouth alone is not possible rationally or legally. These relationships have a solid foundation and solid pillars, and they are not established except on a legal basis — which is the hadith of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: “The child belongs to the bed.” [Agreed upon.] So the son is the one born from the mixing of the gametes, the man’s and the woman’s. The statement of Allah Almighty is the true statement in abolishing an entire system — because it is a system built on deception, falsehood, and lies.

The wise Lawgiver is the one who shows the right path in building the family and its various networks. He guides the way, and His way is the most deserving of being followed. He shows it in the same verse, for the Almighty said: “Call them by the names of their fathers; that is more just in the sight of Allah. But if you do not know their fathers, then they are your brothers in religion and your allies.” (Al-Ahzab: 4)

The meaning of the verse is clear in its guidance to the believers to attribute the lineage of the adopted child to his father in whose bed he was born, for in preserving his lineage to his father is justice and right. In preserving lineage in general, the right of the father, the right of the mother, and the right of the son himself are all preserved, so it is just to attribute the lineage of the son to his father so that rights are established between them — family rights of all kinds.

If it is not possible to know the father, the adopted child is cared for and provided for as a brother in religion, and this child is not left alone. As Sayyid Qutb explains in his commentary: the relationship of brotherhood in religion “is a moral, emotional relationship that does not entail specific obligations such as the obligation of inheritance, mutual support in paying blood money, the obligation of expenses, and the prohibition of forbidden things, because they are obligations of blood relation.” [Qutb, Sayyid: In the Shade of the Qur’an, 11th ed., (Beirut: Dar Al-Shorouk, 1985), vol. 5/p. 2826.]

In abolishing the adoption system, it abolishes the obligations that would arouse the resentment of the rest of the family members towards the intruder. Considering him a brother in religion does not raise any suspicion that could shake the bonds and foundations of the family structure. This divine guidance would not have found its way to the hearts of Muslims easily and simply — embarrassment may occur in the hearts of many, which cannot be removed by a permanent prohibition that did not come in a gradual manner, as human nature may be tainted by some impurities from the sediments of the Age of Ignorance.

The Holy Quran did not ignore these emotional facts. The verbal legislation of prohibition was accompanied by practical legislation — “so that there would not remain the slightest trace of embarrassment in the work of the master of all creation, the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, as he is the most capable person to bear this responsibility.” [Ibn Ashur, At-Tahrir wa At-Tanwir, Vol. 22/p. 39; see also: Ar-Razi, Tafsir Al-Fakhr Ar-Razi, Vol. 13/Vol. 25/pp. 193-195].

Surah Al-Ahzab referred to all the stages that the actual practical legislation of the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, went through.

[See the details of the marriage of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, to Zaynab bint Jahsh, may God be pleased with her, who was the wife and adopted concubine — before the prohibition of adoption was revealed — of Zayd ibn Haritha, may God be pleased with him, according to: Al-Razi, Tafsir Al-Razi, Vol. 13/Vol. 25/pp. 213-215; Ibn Al-Arabi, Ahkam Al-Quran, Vol. 3/p. 1492; Ibn Ashur, Al-Tahrir wa At-Tanwir, Vol. 22/p. 39; Qutb, Fi Zilal Al-Quran, Vol. 5/pp. 2864-2871.]

---

The Legal Distinction Between Adoption and Orphan Sponsorship

Sponsoring an orphan is one of the greatest acts of worship in Islam because of the great reward and recompense that results from it, and because of the mercy, kindness, and care it brings to the orphan. As for adoption in the pre-Islamic sense, it is clearly forbidden.

There are fundamental differences between adoption and the sponsorship of an orphan that must be clearly understood.

As for adoption: it is when a man takes an orphan and makes him like one of his own biological sons — he is called by his name, and the mahrams of that man become forbidden to the orphan as if he were a true son, so the sons of the adopter become brothers of the orphan, his daughters become his sisters, his sisters become his aunts, and so forth. This was from the practices of the first Age of Ignorance, to the point that these names stuck to some of the Companions — such as Al-Miqdad ibn Al-Aswad, whose father’s name was Amr, but he was called Ibn Al-Aswad by the name of the one who adopted him.

This system remained in place in the early days of Islam until Allah forbade it — in the famous story where Zayd ibn Harithah was called Zayd ibn Muhammad, and he was the husband of Zaynab bint Jahsh, and Zayd then divorced her.

Allah Almighty forbade adoption because it wastes lineages, and we have been commanded to preserve our lineages. The meaning of “blasphemy” in the hadith of Abu Dharr is that the person has committed the actions of the disbelievers, not that he has left the religion. This is because such an act forbids what Allah has permitted and permits what He has forbidden. For example, forbidding the daughters of an adopted child to an orphan is forbidding what is permissible that Allah has not forbidden. And permitting inheritance after the death of the adoptive child, for example, is permitting what Allah has forbidden, because inheritance is the right of the children who are truly his own. This may cause animosity and hatred between the adopted child and the biological children of the adoptive father, because it causes them to lose rights that will go to the orphan unjustly — and they know deep down that he is not entitled to them.

As for sponsoring an orphan, it is for a man to keep the orphan in his home or to take care of him in a home other than his own without attributing him to himself, and without forbidding him what is permissible or making permissible what is forbidden, as is the case with adoption. Rather, the sponsor is in the capacity of the generous and benevolent servant after God Almighty. The sponsor of an orphan is not to be compared to the adoptive one due to the fundamental difference between them, and because sponsoring an orphan is something that Islam has urged emphatically.

The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, pointed with his two fingers spread apart to illustrate how close the sponsor of an orphan will be to him in Paradise — one of the most striking incentives for care of the vulnerable in any religious tradition.

However, it must be noted that when these orphans reach puberty, they must be separated from the wives and daughters of the sponsor, and they must not be reformed on one side and corrupted on the other. It must also be known that the one being sponsored may be an orphan who is beautiful and desired before reaching puberty, so the sponsor must monitor his household so that no one falls into forbidden things with the orphans, because this may happen and become a cause of corruption that may be difficult to reform.

---

The Case of Sahlah, Abu Hudhayfah, and Salim

After this introduction to the prohibition of adoption and its effects, the problems that appeared as a result of this prohibition can be properly understood. After the prohibition of adoption, Sahlah bint Suhayl came to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, telling him about her problem with Salim, her adopted son. She had adopted him when he was young to make up for the deprivation of a child, so she was like his mother and her husband Abu Hudhayfah was like his father.

However, after the revelation of the verses of prohibition, she saw the distress on Abu Hudhayfah’s face when Salim entered and left — and Salim was now, legally, a stranger to his formerly adopted family. Sahlah bint Suhayl came to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and said: “O Messenger of God, I see on Abu Hudhayfah’s face something when Salim enters.” He was his ally, so the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: “Breastfeed him.” She said: “How can I breastfeed him when he is an old man?” The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, smiled and said: “I know that he is an old man.”

---

Four Critical Observations on the Salim Incident

This ruling cannot be read as a general standing concession for adult breastfeeding in Islam, for reasons that the incident itself makes plain.

The first observation: if we examine this incident carefully, we find that Sahlah should have been the one to denounce the exposure of her body in front of Salim, but she did not ask about this. Rather, she was surprised by the breastfeeding itself, given that he was an adult. She said, “How can I breastfeed him when he is an adult man?” — because she was well aware that breastfeeding is a garment for a young child, which is what is considered legally. The hadiths that restrict it to what was within the two years or to conditions of famine are more famous than for us to need to collect and list them all here.

The second observation: likewise, Salim himself — why did he not find it strange that he would touch the body of a foreign woman in a way that is not usually apparent to foreigners? And who is this Salim? He is one of the people to whom the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, directed the Companions to learn the Quran. The Prophet said: “Learn the Qur’an from four: from Banu Umm Abd, and he began with him, Mu’adh ibn Jabal, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, and Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah.” [Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 2464.] He was the one who led the first immigrants in prayer in the Quba Mosque because he had memorized the most Quran among them — and beyond this, there are many, many of his great deeds. In addition to what is known about the Companions, may God be pleased with them, of caution and wariness — to the point that they would rush to ask about what was permissible and what was forbidden and would hasten to request legislation about what they were in doubt about, as happened in the story of the prohibition of alcohol, when Umar and some of the Companions said: “O God, make clear to us regarding alcohol clearly and conclusively” — in a story with well-known details, until the command to prohibit it was revealed and the Companions said: “We have finished.”

The third observation: the evidence is that the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, did not enjoy sins and seek concessions for them as is done in our time. Rather they asked and inquired, and the Quranic phrases “They ask you about” in the Holy Quran bear witness to that — as do the reports that bear witness to the interest of the Companions in inquiring about Allah’s ruling regarding what befell them, more than can be counted and more difficult than can be investigated. So how can it be permissible to say, given all of this, that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and then the heroes of the breastfeeding story and the community of the Companions accepted this idea that is promoted by the doubters?

The fourth observation: is this ruling specific to Salim, or is it ongoing and linked to its cause wherever the cause appears?

---

The Ruling Is Specific to Salim — A Jurisprudential Explanation

This specificity itself raises a question that points to the answer: why is there a specificity, and is there a specificity in legislation? And why does the ruling not continue linked to its cause — in existence and nonexistence — so that it exists where it exists and disappears where it disappears?

The specificity here is justified by the fact that it is the only case that arose from the ruling on adoption that the Quran decided to prohibit, as this case was existing and occurring — the prohibition was revealed as an emergency ruling for an already-existing situation. Then what happened after that happened: Abu Hudhayfah experienced jealousy over Salim entering his house after he had become a legal stranger to him, and Abu Hudhayfah’s wife experienced grief over Salim’s separation from his adopted family. As for the others who might think to replicate the situation — this is inconceivable, because by the decision to prohibit adoption, the door was closed from the beginning. It is therefore inconceivable for a woman to develop the same deep attachment to a stranger that Abu Hudhayfah’s wife had developed to Salim, due to the absence of the very cause that produced this type of relationship — namely, the system of adoption.

This is a situation that will not be repeated because its cause — adoption — has not been acknowledged by Islamic law as a legitimate institution. To state it in more precise jurisprudential terms: it will not require a ruling because the cause for which the exception was issued has itself been abolished. The very wives of the Prophet, in their refusal to apply the ruling beyond Salim, demonstrate this understanding from the inside of the Prophetic household itself.

---

Christians and Adult Breastfeeding — The Plank in Their Own Eye

It is very strange when Christian websites address this topic to defame the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, when their own books and literature are filled with material far more striking than this. They have forgotten the teachings of Jesus Christ himself in his saying:

We, in turn, make them see the plank in their own eyes so that they may see and not look down on others — for they are most worthy of that reminder. We remind them of what is found in their own devotional literature and iconography: a picture of the Virgin Mary breastfeeding her child, the Lord Jesus, feeding Him with her left breast while she breastfeeds Saint Bernard of Clairvaux with her right breast.

It is written beneath this image the words from their own scripture:

The image of the Virgin Mary simultaneously nursing both the infant Jesus and the adult Saint Bernard of Clairvaux is found in mainstream Christian devotional art and hagiography — making the Christian polemic against Islam on this subject a stunning exercise in selective outrage.

Mother of God Breastfeeds Saint Bernard and Breastfeeds the Animal
Breastfeeding from the Semen of a Stallion — Refuting the Polemical Misreading of Sahih Muslim and the Hadith of Aflah ibn Abi al-Qays
Did Islam Allow Breastfeeding an Adult? Scholarly Refutation of the Salim Hadith Misconception

---