Tehrif (Distortion) in the Quran: The Case of the Missing Verse of Five Breastfeedings

Aisha claimed that at the time of the Prophet's death, the verse regarding five breastfeedings was present and was being recited as part of the Quran. However, it is nowhere to be found in the Quran today.

Sahih Muslim, Book of Suckling (Link):

عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ كَانَ فِيمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ عَشْرُ رَضَعَاتٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ يُحَرِّمْنَ ‏.‏ ثُمَّ نُسِخْنَ بِخَمْسٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ فَتُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَهنَّ فِيمَا يُقْرَأُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).

[Note: This is a Tehrif (distortion) in the translation by Muslims (Mohsin Khan) of this Hadith. He put these words (and recited by the Muslims) in parenthesis, implying these words are an external explanation or a commentary added by the translator. However, in the original Arabic text, these words are an integral part of the Hadith itself. Placing them in parentheses appears to be an intentional distortion aimed at confusing the reader and downplaying the fact that the verse was physically present and recited as part of the Quran at the time of the death of Muhammad. This subtle manipulation of the text is a clear attempt to protect the narrative of perfect preservation at the expense of honesty.]

Sunan Ibn Majah, Chapter on Breastfeeding of Adults (Link):

حدثنا أبو سلمة يحيى بن خلف . حدثنا عبد الأعلى عن محمد بن إسحاق عن عبد الله بن أبي بکر عن عمرة عن عائشة . وعن عبد الرحمن بن القاسم عن أبيه عن عائشة : - قالت لقد نزلت آية الرجم ورضاعة الکبير عشرا . ولقد كان في صحيفة تحت سريري . فلما مات رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم وتشاغلنا بموته دخل داجن فأكلها

It was narrated that 'Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”

Ibn Hazm declared this narration as "Sahih" (authentic) in his book Al-Muhalla (11/236).

In order to defend Islam, the apologist began criticizing Ibn Ishaq (the narrator of this report), claiming he is a "Mudallis" (one who omits links) and narrated using "an" (from). Because of this, later scholars started labelling this narration as "weak."

In response, it should be noted that first, this raises questions about the "Science of Hadith" itself, as it was formulated by defenders of the faith specifically to discard narrations that invited criticism of Islam. (To see the reality of the Science of Hadith, read our article here).

Secondly, even if we accept their Science of Hadith, this objection is incorrect because in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, this narration exists from Ibn Ishaq with the explicit term "Haddathani" (He narrated to me).

Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal (Link):

عن محمد بن إسحاق ، قال : حدثني عبد الله بن أبي بكر ، عن عمرة بنت عبد الرحمن ، عن عائشة ، قالت : " لقد أنزلت آية الرجم ، ورضعات الكبير عشراً ، فكانت في ورقة تحت سرير في بيتي ، فلما اشتكى رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - تشاغلنا بأمره ، ودخلت دويبة لنا فأكلتها "

Translation: Narrated from Muhammad bin Ishaq, who said: Abdullah bin Abi Bakr narrated to me via Amrah bint Abdur Rahman, from Aisha, who said: "The verse of stoning and the ten servings of breastfeeding for an adult were revealed, and they were on a paper under my bed in my house. When the Messenger of Allah became ill, we were occupied with his matter, and a domestic animal of ours (a goat) entered and ate it."

Many scholars have called Ibn Ishaq "Sadūq" (truthful) and accepted his individual narrations. Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah stated regarding him:

"When Ibn Ishaq says Haddathani, he is considered trustworthy (Thiqah) by the people of Hadith, and this chain narrated by Ibn Ishaq is Jayyid (good)." (Majmu' al-Fatawa, vol. 33, p. 85)

Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani stated in his book Takhrij Ahadith fi al-Kashaf: "The narrators of this report are trustworthy and not accused," meaning there is no valid criticism against them.

Therefore, this narration is at least strong enough that it cannot be dismissed simply by claiming "Tadlis" (omission of sources).

Furthermore, some Islamic scholars claim that the last part of the Sahih Muslim narration is incorrect, where Aisha says that the verse of five breastfeedings was part of the Quran and was being recited until the death of the Prophet. They claim the Sahih Muslim narration comes through Abdullah bin Abi Bakr, but another narrator, Yahya bin Said al-Ansari, also narrated this report without the final sentence.

Musnad al-Shafi'i (Link):

يحيى بن سعيد فرواه عن عمرة عن عائشة قالت: انزل فی القرآن عشر رضاعات معلومات ثم انزل خمس رضاعات

Allah revealed in the Quran ten known servings of breastfeeding, then He revealed five servings.

This is a strange claim. Firstly, there is no principle in the Science of Hadith stating that if one trustworthy narrator provides half a report, the complete report provided by another trustworthy narrator must be declared wrong. Secondly, this narration actually strengthens the report of Abdullah bin Abi Bakr because it also bears witness that the verse of five breastfeedings was undoubtedly revealed in the Quran, but is now missing.

The Mountain of Disagreements in Fatwas Stemming from Aisha’s Narrations Regarding Quranic Alteration

Aisha’s stance that the verse regarding "five sucklings" remained a part of the Quran until the death of Muhammad, is not merely a historical statement. Rather, it is the pivot point that has split Islamic jurisprudence into two contradictory halves, issuing diametrically opposed fatwas:

• The Shafi'is and Hanbalis, following Aisha, issue fatwas stating that marriage between a man and a woman is not prohibited by fosterage (suckling) if the suckling occurred fewer than five times.

• On the other hand, the Malikis and Hanafis, agitated by the absence of this verse in the current Quran, rejected the testimony reaching them through the authentic (Sahih) hadiths of Aisha. They decreed that if even a single drop of milk is consumed, such a marriage becomes haram (forbidden).

For reference, see the book Al-Fiqh 'ala al-Madhahib al-Arba'a (Jurisprudence according to the Four Schools). The Arabic text states:

 أن الشافعية والحنابلة يقولون إن الرضاع لا يحرم إلا إذا كان خمس مرات ، والمالكية والحنفية يقولون إن الرضاع يحرم مطلقاً قليلاً كان أو كثيراً ولو قطرة )  
"Indeed, the Shafi'is and Hanbalis say that suckling does not establish prohibition unless it occurs five times. The Malikis and Hanafis say that suckling establishes prohibition absolutely, whether the amount is small or large, even if it is a single drop."

It is proven through authentic narrations that even after the death of the Prophet, Aisha remained firmly committed to the fatwa of "five sucklings" until her own death. When she wished to make a man a Mahram (a close relative with whom marriage is forbidden) so he could visit her, she would instruct her nieces to breastfeed that individual five times.

Sunan Abi Dawud, 2061:

Aisha and Umm Salama narrated the story of Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) told Sahla (Abu Hudhayfah's wife) to breastfeed Salim five times so he could become like her son. Aisha used to command her nieces to breastfeed those whom she wished to see and let them enter her presence, even if they were adults, provided they were breastfed five times. However, Umm Salama and the other wives of the Prophet refused to let anyone enter their presence based on this type of breastfeeding unless the breastfeeding occurred in infancy. They told Aisha: "By Allah, we do not know if this was a special permission given by the Prophet to Salim only and not for all people." (Al-Albani graded this narration as Sahih). 

Aisha’s actions prove that:

1. In her view, this ruling was never abrogated.

2. In her view, "Radha'at al-Kabir" (adult suckling) was a general legal principle, not a specific exemption for one companion (Salim).

Today, all Muslim scholars have a "consensus" (Ijma) that anyone who claims the current Quran is missing even a single verse, or has an addition, he/she becomes a Kafir (infidel) and Apostate.

However, in the case of Aisha, scholars remain silent or resort to complex interpretations such as "the ruling remains, but the recitation was abrogated" (Naskh al-Tilawah). The reality is that in Aisha’s view, those words were "Quran" and neither abrogated nor their recitation was abrogated, but they do not exist in today’s Quran. According to modern standards, is this not a belief in the "alteration of the Quran" (Tahrif)?

The belief that the ruling remains but the recitation is abrogated was created solely by later Muslim scholars on their own

It should be remembered that the interpretation regarding the ruling remaining while the recitation is abrogated was concocted later by the scholars themselves. The Quran and Hadith only contain the claim that Allah replaces one verse with another better one. However, nowhere in the entire Quran or Hadith is this excuse found that the ruling will remain but only the recitation has been abrogated.

The mention of abrogation in the Quran is generally made in reference to the following two verses:

• Surah Al-Baqarah (106): "When We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or equal to it."

• Surah An-Nahl (101): "And when We change a verse for another..."

Similarly, nothing like this was stated directly by Muhammad himself that the ruling remains but the recitation is abrogated. It was only the Muslim scholars who later invented this excuse on their own.

Please consider the following points:

• There is not a single reference in the entire collection of Hadith where any companion said to Lady Aisha that "this verse is not in the Quran because its recitation has been abrogated while the ruling remains" (as the Shafi and Hanbali schools claim).

• Similarly, no companion said to them that "this verse regarding ten or five instances was never revealed in the Quran" (as the Maliki and Hanafi schools claim).

These contradictions point to the fact that during the compilation of the Quran, a significant portion of the material was either lost or changed.

The Excuse of "Abrogation of Recitation" was Rejected by Maliki and Hanafi Scholars Too

Indeed, the excuse that the recitation of these verses was "abrogated" was a later fabrication by Shafi'i and Hanbali scholars. However, Maliki and Hanafi scholars did not accept this excuse simply because such a concept is nowhere to be found in the Quran or Hadith.

Instead of the "abrogated recitation" theory, Maliki and Hanafi scholars offered a different excuse altogether, which claims that:

• While Aisha's Hadith is "Authentic" (Sahih) and transmitted through multiple chains, her claim is still considered an "Isolated Report" (Khabar al-Wahid) that was not narrated by other companions.

• Consequently, they argue that Aisha must have been mistaken or suffered a lapse in memory regarding this matter.

• Therefore, they conclude that neither the verse of "ten sucklings" nor the verse of "five sucklings" was ever actually revealed as part of the Quran.

• They further argue that the wording in the Quran, "your mothers who nursed you," is general and does not specify a number. Thus, according to them, if a woman gives even a single drop of milk to a child under the age of two, the bond of prohibition (حرمة) is established.

However, the claim by Maliki and Hanafi scholars that Aisha's narration is merely an "Isolated Report" is a historical deception.

In reality, Aisha's statement that "these verses were part of the Quran" carries a significant level of Tawatur (continuity), which, according to Muslim scholars themselves, reflects a "Consensus" (Ijma) among the companions. How is it possible that for decades after Muhammad's death, Aisha continued to state this publicly and her students continued to narrate it, yet not a single companion who was a memorizer of the Quran or a scribe of the revelation ever stood up to say, 'O Aisha! You are wrong; the verses of ten or five sucklings were never revealed'?

In fact, according to the Hadith, while the other wives of the Prophet openly disagreed with Aisha regarding the nursing of adult men, not one of them ever refuted her regarding the existence of the verses of ten or five sucklings, nor did they ever claim the "five sucklings" verse was abrogated. This indicates they agreed with Aisha regarding the establishment of prohibition through five sucklings for children under two. 

The lack of any refutation throughout the era of the companions is the strongest evidence that this was a known truth upon which there was consensus. For Hanafis and Malikis to dismiss this as Aisha's "delusion" is, in fact, an attack on Aisha's intellect and the integrity of all the companions. 

Furthermore, a horrifying question arises here when Hanafi and Maliki jurists offer the excuse that "Aisha was mistaken and that verse was not part of the Quran" just to save their own jurisprudence, do they realize they are directly accusing Aisha of believing in the "Alteration of the Quran" (Tahrif), even if they attribute it to her memory lapse?

Note: It is worth remembering that according to Muslim scholars, following the verse where Allah claims He revealed the Quran and is its Protector, any Muslim who believes in the alteration of the Quran, even through an error in judgment (i.e., Ijtehadi Mistake), becomes a disbeliever and an apostate. Yet, these scholars are forced into a contradiction, resorting to double standards by refusing to apply the fatwa of disbelief and apostasy to Aisha.

Moreover, scholars have utterly failed to provide any "Divine Wisdom" behind this process that proves any benefit to humanity. Far from being beneficial, it has only caused "discord" among Muslims, as seen in the conflicting fatwas where Muslims have been clashing for centuries; some insist on five sucklings, some on three sucklings, while others claim a single drop makes a marriage haram.

The Excuse: The ruling was only for Salim as a special exception.

Then the verse (and the legal principle) should not have been presented as a general Qur’anic rule. A “special exception” would be taught by word of mouth, not embedded in a revealed scripture for all humanity. Using a Qur’anic verse for a one‑time case and then deleting it serves no divine purpose, but it only creates confusion, as seen.

What "Divine Wisdom" Was Present in the Abrogation of the Nursing Verse?

Before diving into the details, some background is necessary to understand why this ruling existed in the first place.

Muhammad had announced that an adopted son becomes a non-mahram (legal stranger) to his adoptive mother as soon as he reaches puberty. This single ruling overnight destroyed countless families. On top of that, Muhammad imposed strict restrictions on meetings between such men and women who were not mahrams, creating serious practical difficulties in daily life.

To resolve this issue, Muhammad found a way out to appease the companions with adopted children who were protesting this new ruling because children were being separated from their parents. Consequently, Muhammad issued a new command: if a woman nurses an adult man, he will become her mahram, and the restrictions between them will no longer apply.

This ruling immediately raised a question that even the companions found distressing: How on earth could a woman nurse a grown man? The following Hadith gives us a glimpse of this distress and Muhammad's reaction to it:

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1453a:

' A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be eupon him) and said: Messengerof Allah, I see on the face of Abu Hudhaifa (signs of disgust) on entering of Salim (who is an ally/adopted son) into (our house), whereupon Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) said: Suckle him. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man? Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) smiled and said: I already know that he is a young man ... and in the narration of Ibn 'Umar (the words are): Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) laughed.

Some narrations describe the intensity of the laughter as follows:

"فَضَحِكَ حَتَّى بَدَتْ نَوَاجِذُهُ"
Translation: He laughed so hard that his back teeth/molars became visible.
Reference: Sunan al-Kubra by al-Nasa'i

The question is: why did the Prophet feel the need to laugh so heartily that his teeth became visible?

Sahla was clearly distressed. For her husband, the situation where a young man might nurse from his wife's breasts was extremely unpleasant and disgusting. Yet, Muhammad was laughing, seemingly amused by the situation.

Was Nursing Through a Cup or Directly from the Breasts?

Muslim apologists today claim that Muhammad commanded Sahla to express her milk into a "cup" and give it to Salim, rather than nursing him directly from her breasts.

However, this claim by apologists is incorrect.

There are three key elements in the original Hadith:

• First is Sahla's distress over the idea of nursing the adult Salim ten times. If the solution was as simple as expressing milk into a vessel and letting Salim drink it, why was Sahla so worried? What would be so objectionable about drinking milk from a vessel that she had to go to Muhammad to explain her difficulty? Her anxiety clearly demonstrates that the matter concerned the nature of an act with a strange, adult man that would normally be considered impossible and shameful.

• Second is Hudhaifa's "displeasure" regarding this command. The question is if Salim had merely drunk from a cup, what was there to be so displeased and disgusted about? Any guest can drink a cup of milk. Abu Hudhaifa's bitter reaction screams that something happened which was intolerable for a husband with a sense of honour.

• And third is Muhammad's hearty laughter when he was told about Hudhaifa's disgust.

Therefore, if it truly had been milk expressed into a cup, Sahla would not have been distressed, Hudhaifa would not have been disgusted, and Muhammad would not have laughed so heartily.

Furthermore, look at the fear of the narrator, Ibn Abi Mulayka, in the following Hadith, who was unable to narrate this tradition for an entire year out of fear (/shame).

Sahih Muslim, 1453c:

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 (ﷺ) 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.

Ibn Abi Mulayka's statement, "I refrained from (narrating this hadith) for a year or so on account of fear," is the greatest proof that this was no ordinary command.

• If it were merely a matter of expressing milk into a cup and serving it, there would have been nothing for a narrator to be afraid of or hesitant to mention.

• "Fear" and "hesitation" indicate that even the people of that time considered it an "extraordinary" and "shocking" act related to Direct Breastfeeding.

A bearded man nursing from a woman's breasts is a shameful act that will inevitably arouse "lust," and every husband would express disgust over it.

This is why, in the entire history of the world, no civilization or religion has ever implemented such a practice, except for Islam.

It is with this background that we arrive at the issue of abrogation.

The First Question on "Divine Wisdom": Is an "Emotional Bond" Not Possible with Foster Parents?

Thousands of years of practical human experience testify that a child does not care who gave birth to them; instead, they instinctively rush into the arms of the one who nurtures them, feeds them, and holds them with love.

Psychologists universally agree that through the process of upbringing, an "emotional bond" is formed between the mother and child that has absolutely nothing to do with "lust." This bond persists even after the child reaches adulthood. The entire world has been in agreement on this for millennia, except for Muhammad.

In contrast, if a woman nurses a bearded, adult man, it never creates a mother-child bond; instead, it generates nothing but lust.

The Young Slave Becomes a Mahram Upon Purchase, Yet the Child Raised for Years Remains a Stranger: What "Divine Wisdom" is in These Islamic Double Standards?

According to Islamic Sharia, an adult stranger who was purchased just moments ago from a slave market, who has no emotional, moral, or blood connection to the family, he becomes a "Mahram" for all the women of the house (the owner's wife and daughters) the moment he steps inside.

• He is allowed to move freely within the private quarters of the house.

• He can spend time alone with the young daughters and the wife.

• The women are not required to observe Hijab or hide their adornments in his presence.

Surah An-Nur, Verse 31:
"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof... and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, or those whom their right hands possess (i.e., slaves)..."

Observe the following Hadith as well, where Muhammad tells his daughter Fatima that she does not need to observe Hijab from a male slave.

Sunan Abi Dawud, Hadith 4106:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) brought Fatima a slave which he had given her. Fatima was wearing a garment which was so short that if she covered her head, it did not reach her feet, and if she covered her feet, her head was exposed. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) saw her struggle, he said: "There is no harm for you, for there is only your father and your slave here." (Grade: Sahih, Al-Albani)

In stark contrast to the adult male slave, a child who grew up in a mother's lap, received her maternal love, spent his childhood with her, and whom she regarded as her true son, suddenly becomes a "stranger" (non-mahram) to his own foster mother the moment he hits puberty. Now, he cannot stay alone with his mother in that same house and is forced out.

So, tell us, what "Divine Wisdom" exists in these contradictory Islamic rulings based on double standards?

Second Question on "Divine Wisdom": Why the Verse of 10 Sucklings Before the Verse of 5?

The narration is from Sahih Muslim, Book of Suckling (Link):

Narrated by Aisha: "It had been revealed in the Quran that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated by five clear sucklings, and when the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) died, these words (the verse of five sucklings) were among those being recited in the Quran."

The questions arising from this are simple and have never received a satisfactory answer:

• Why did the verse of ten come first?

• What "Divine Wisdom" made it necessary to start with ten and then "correct" it to five?

• If Allah had sent the verse of five from the very beginning, would the companions have revolted?

• Was there some cosmic necessity for this specific number that later became unnecessary, requiring abrogation?

If abrogation occurred due to an actual change in circumstances or a real social need, one might understand the logic. But here, there is no change in circumstances.

Muslim apologists present this excuse:

If Allah had revealed a very strict command all at once, it would have been difficult for human nature to accept. Therefore, Allah first sent the verse of 10 sucklings and then abrogated it with 5.

If Allah's purpose was "gradualism" (Tadrij) and creating ease for human nature, then in principle, 5 times (the easier command) should have been revealed first, and then if necessary, increased to 10 times (the harder command). But here, the case is exactly the opposite. First, the difficult command of 10 times was given, and then it was reduced to 5.

Thus, when Muslim apologists claim it was difficult for the companions to accept the easier command of 5 times the first time, but easier to accept the difficult command of 10 times, their claim goes against both logic and human nature.

The reality is that there was no "regard for human nature" behind this change. This contradiction clarifies that these commands did not come from an All-Knowing, All-Aware being. If this were the Word of Allah, He would have known from the very first time whether 5 times was sufficient or 10.

Furthermore, the aforementioned Hadith gives us an important clue as to why the change actually occurred. It is clear that not only Sahla's husband, but every single man would find it "extremely disgusting" for a young man to suckle his wife's breasts to drink milk, and other people would inevitably laugh, gossip, and consider the act shameful.

Naturally, a woman nursing a young man ten times was more intolerable than five times. Consequently, Muhammad reduced it from 10 to 5 so that the "displeasure" of husbands and the "distress" of women could be somewhat lessened.

If an ordinary ruler issues a decree but later changes it upon realizing that the affected people find it unbearable, such a ruler would certainly be considered prudent. But if instead of a ruler, an "All-Knowing" God, who supposedly already knew human nature and the consequences, does this, then such a being cannot be called God, as He is learning through a "Trial and Error" method.

Third Question on "Divine Wisdom": The Verse Vanished, but the Ruling Remained

From this point, the story shifts from strange to truly inexplicable.

After the verse of ten sucklings was abrogated by the verse of five, another event occurred, i.e., the verse of five itself was removed from the Quran. It was completely deleted. Today, it is nowhere to be found in the Quranic text recited by Muslims.

Objections:

1. What kind of logic or "divine wisdom" is it to make the verse vanish from the Quran while keeping the ruling active?

2. The question is if Allah had maintained the verse in the Quran alongside the ruling, would the companions have started a revolt against it?

3. Please explain the divine wisdom behind the decision that it was deemed better to make the verse disappear from the Quran, yet keep its legal authority intact?

Looking at the circumstances, there is no "improvement" to be found anywhere, instead, this act has produced nothing but chaos and contradictions, like as under:

The First Jurisprudential Chaos: 

For the past 1400 years, Muslim scholars have been at odds with one another. One group of jurists argues that prohibition is only established if a woman nurses a child five times. Meanwhile, another group insists that even a single drop of milk given to a child establishes prohibition.

The Second Jurisprudential Chaos:

The disagreement between Aisha and the other Mothers of the Believers, where Aisha believed in the validity of "adult nursing" while the other wives did not. This very conflict split jurists into two camps, where one accepting it and the other rejecting it.

So, what is this "Divine Wisdom" based on which creating these two forms of chaos was considered a better outcome?

The reality is that neither the author of the Quran nor Muhammad himself ever offered the excuse in any Hadith that some verses of the Quran are abrogated while their rulings remain. Rather, this excuse was fabricated later by Muslim scholars to protect the compilation of the Quran from accusations of alteration (Tahrif).

This entire ordeal, i.e. changing 10 to 5, and then the verse vanishing from the Quran while the ruling stayed, proves that this was all a result of human memory, evolutionary stages, and the modification of rulings due to social distaste. It was later unsuccessfully masked under the veils of "gradualism" and "divine wisdom."

Fourth Question on "Divine Wisdom": Why was "Adult Nursing" Limited Only to Salim's Case?

Please explain the "Divine Wisdom" based on which adult nursing (Rada' al-Kabir) was deemed permissible and better specifically for Salim's case, yet remained prohibited for millions of other mothers and their adopted children throughout the world?

If Muhammad had not granted this permission even in Salim's case, would Sahla and Hudhaifa have staged a "revolt" against him?

How can we reconcile 'Divine Wisdom' with the 1,400 years of legal chaos triggered by the Salim incident? It is a staggering contradiction, where a single event has led some to permit adult nursing between unrelated men and women, while others denounce the very same practice as an utter obscenity and a deep stain on the faith’s honour.

What is the benefit of "Divine Wisdom" in this single case, which created such a profound disagreement between the greatest scholar of the Ummah (Aisha) and the rest of the Prophet's wives, a conflict that remains a source of embarrassment and confusion for Muslims to this day?

The Judgment of Humanity:

Even if the issue of adult nursing was an exception only in the case of Salim and Sahla, it is enough for us to determine that Islam is by no means a true religion. No mother should be subjected to such humiliation just to prove the bond of motherhood. Instead, it is enough to prove this maternal bond by the fact that the mother raised the adopted child, cared for him, and nurtured him with love.

Fifth Question on "Divine Wisdom": Why Were These Hardships Created for Humanity by Islam?

If you wish to understand the severity of this Islamic ruling, take a look at this incident, where a Muslim mother could not hold back her tears and refused to be separated from her adopted son when he reached the age of 12-13 and hit puberty. However, the relatives insisted on forcibly separating them and kicking the son out of the house, and the Muslim Mufti supported their decision, citing it as Allah's command in Islam. According to this reasoning, Allah fears that allowing these two non-mahrams (the mother and her 12-14-year-old adopted son) to stay together under one roof may lead to the fitna of fornication.

Muhammad attempted to provide a solution by ruling that the mother should nurse her adopted child five times before the age of two.

However, a problem arises that many childless women do not lactate, and often their nieces are not yet of marriageable age to be able to nurse a child under two years old. In such cases, Islam is unable to offer any solution and mandates that childless women must be separated from their adopted sons once they reach puberty.

But the problems go far beyond the nursing of a two-year-old child.

For instance, the joint family system exists in the Indian subcontinent (Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh). In Afghanistan, this system is even more rigid than in the subcontinent. Due to economic necessity, it is often an unavoidable situation where a sister-in-law must live under the same roof as her husband's elder and younger brothers.

Humanity dictates that the "education" of being a decent human is enough to establish a relationship of "respect" between a man and a woman. Nursing an adult (Rada' al-Kabir) is an extremely inappropriate method to develop this bond of respect. Look again at those Muslim families living in joint family systems in countries like India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. There exists a relationship of respect between a man and his elder brother's wife, showcasing that this kind of bond can flourish without resorting to breastfeeding.