Toggle above to switch between keyword search and direct hadith lookup

Hadith 2254

أَخْبَرَنَا خَالِدُ بْنُ مَخْلَدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مَالِكٌ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ نَوْفَلٍ الْأَسَدِيِّ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَة، عَنْ جُدَامَةَ بِنْتِ وَهْبٍ الْأَسَدِيَّةِ، قَالَتْ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: "لَقَدْ هَمَمْتُ أَنْ أَنْهَى عَنِ الْغِيلَةِ حَتَّى ذَكَرْتُ أَنَّ فَارِسَ، وَالرُّومَ يَصْنَعُونَ ذَلِكَ فَلَا يَضُرُّ أَوْلَادَهُمْ" . قَالَ أَبُو مُحَمَّد: الْغِيلَةُ: أَنْ يُجَامِعَهَا وَهِيَ تُرْضِعُ.
Sayyidah Judamah bint Wahb Asadiyyah (may Allah be pleased with her) said that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "I intended to prohibit intercourse with a nursing woman, but then I remembered that the people of Rome and Persia do so and it does not harm their children." Imam Darimi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: By «غيله» is meant that a woman is breastfeeding a child and intercourse is done with her.
Hadith Reference سنن دارمي / من كتاب النكاح / 2254
Hadith Grading تحقیق (حسین سلیم أسد الدارانی): إسناده قوي وهو عند مالك في الرضاع، [مكتبه الشامله نمبر: 2263]
Hadith Takhrij اس حدیث کی سند قوی ہے۔ دیکھئے: [مسلم 1442] ، [أبوداؤد 3882] ، [ترمذي 2076] ، [نسائي 3326] ، [ابن ماجه 2011] ، [ابن حبان 4196]
Brief Explanation
(Commentary on Hadith 2253)

The Arabs held the belief that when a mother is breastfeeding her child, one should not have intercourse with her, as this would cause the boy to become weak and frail.
This is not correct. However, if pregnancy occurs during the period of breastfeeding (radā‘ah), then the two years of breastfeeding are not completed, and thus the child is harmed. As is well known and established, for an infant, there is nothing more nourishing and important for growth than the mother’s milk.
In any case, from this hadith it is understood that there is no harm in having intercourse with a woman who is breastfeeding during the period of breastfeeding.
Subhan Allah! In Islamic Shari‘ah, there is nothing for which a ruling has not been clarified.