In accordance with classical missionary habits, the Christian missionary Sam Shamoun – who is notorious for his perverted and filthy misinterpretations – has taken the event of Sahla bint Suhail nursing an adult boy, Salim the ally of Abu Huzaifah, as an opportunity to assault Islam by calling it “shameful and disgusting to say the least”. In this paper, insha’allah, we are going to refute this perverted missionary whose mind is filled with nothing but filth, wa Allah-ul-Musta’aan.
What is the Significance of Nursing?
According to numerous Prophetic traditions, foster relations are treated like blood relations in marital affairs. These relations can render one Muhram (i.e., unmarriageable), so he can attend at his foster relatives and see them as he does with his blood relatives.
Narrated ‘Aisha: Aflah asked the permission to visit me but I did not allow him. He said, “Do you veil yourself before me although I am your uncle?” `Aisha said, “How is that?” Aflah replied, “You were suckled by my brother’s wife with my brother’s milk.” I asked Allah’s Apostle about it, and he said, “Aflah is right, so permit him to visit you.”1
Narrated Ibn `Abbas: The Prophet said about Hamza’s daughter, “I am not legally permitted to marry her, as foster relations are treated like blood relations (in marital affairs). She is the daughter of my foster brother.”
Narrated `Amra bint `Abdur-Rahman: That ‘Aisha the wife of the Prophet told her uncle that once, while the Prophet was in her house, she heard a man asking Hafsa’s permission to enter her house. ‘Aisha said, “I said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! I think the man is Hafsa’s foster uncle.'” ‘Aisha added, “O Allah’s Apostle! There is a man asking the permission to enter your house.” Allah’s Apostle replied, “I think the man is Hafsa’s foster uncle.” ‘Aisha said, “If so-and-so were living (i.e. her foster uncle) would he be allowed to visit me?” Allah’s Apostle said, “Yes, he would, as the foster relations are treated like blood relations (in marital affairs).
Narrated Aisha: Once the Prophet came to me while a man was in my house. He said, “O ‘Aish?! 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).
So the purpose of the Prophet’s(P) permission to Sahla bint Suhail was to make Salim her foster son in order that he could attend at her the same way he used to when he was under age of puberty.
Will The Real Pervert Please Stand Up?
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.
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 Sahla bint Suhail and Salim, as reported by Muhamad Ibn Sa’ad and Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalani in their respective biographies of Sahla bint Suhail:
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 Salim 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.
We believe that this is a fatal refutation to Shamoun’s perverted mentality. The charge that he had wanted to direct at our Holy Prophet(P) has backfired upon him. 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.
Why Was the Nursing of Adults Permitted?
According to the following reports in Sahih Muslim, nursing of the young boy, Salim, was a permission from the Messenger of Allah(P) to Sahla bint Suhail.
‘Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) 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.
On quoting this particular hadith, Shamoun has made emphasis on Sahla’s wonderment “How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man?”, implying that she found it disgusting to nurse an adult boy according to the missionary’s filthy interpretation, and on the Prophet’s(P) laugh implying that it was a “mischievous” one. In response to this ugly gesture, we note that Sahla knew, as any Muslim, that nursing is effective only in the first two years, this is the reason why she expressed her wonder. When the Prophet(P) confirmed his command, she realized the exceptional nature of this permission. It is well known that a newborn baby suckles directly from the breast because he/she is unable to drink from a cup in contrast to older children and adults. That is why it is only natural and logical to think of a cup or a similar object when one mentions a grown-up person, not direct suckling from the breast, especially when the Arabic word reda’ – which is rendered to nursing or suckling – does not indicate any direct contact. There is no room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation here. We too would like to express our wonder regarding the dirty missionary interpretation and ask Shamoun to explain how the dismay and uneasiness of Abu Huzaifah, Sahla’s husband, on the mere idea of Salim getting a little close to his wife like a son, “disappeared” as the below hadith shows, if direct suckling from his wife’s breast had occurred? How could this act have made Abu Huzaifah any “happier” or receptive towards Salim?
We repeat again that Abu Huzaifah’s dismay was at the mere notion of Salim approaching his wife – as a son approaches his mother. Can we then imagine that such a jealous man would accept or allow a practice that, according to the pervert missionary, would require his wife to literally breast-feed another man, and that his dismay and uneasiness would just “vanish”? You must bring the most irrational explanation to answer this question with a “yes”. We do congratulate Sam Shamoun for his extraordinary mental “integrity”!
‘Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hadhaifa, lived with him and his family in their house. She (i. e. the daughter of Suhail came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Salim has attained (puberty) as men attain, and he understands what they understand, and he enters our house freely, I, however, perceive that something (rankles) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said to her: Suckle him and you would become unlawful for him, and (the rankling) which Abu Hudhaifa feels in his heart will disappear. She returned and said: So I suckled him, and what (was there) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa disappeared.
Umm Salama said to ‘Aisha (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 ‘Aisha (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).
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 (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 Hudhaifa.
The reader of this report can easily recognize that Salim used to enter Sahla’s home when he was her adopted son, but when Islam forbade the adoption, a transitional phase was necessary because Salim was like a real son to Sahla and it was difficult for her to push him away as a stranger. This is the reason for this kind permission of the Prophet(P). One is indeed shocked to see how this kind gesture of the Messenger(P) is given the most disgusting interpretation by a pervert Christian missionary!
Was this permission for Sahla alone? We say: “Yes!” because the general Islamic view on the matter is that there is no effective nursing after the first two years of age. Our proof is the report on the authority of ‘Aisha herself that Allah’s Apostle(P) said:
Fosterage is only valid if it takes place in the suckling period (before two years of age).
Imam Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Qur’an 2:233 notes that:
It is reported in both Sahihs that `Aisha thought that if a woman gives her milk to an older person (meaning beyond the age of two years) then this will establish fosterage. This is also the opinion of `Ata’ Ibn Abu Rabah and Al-Laith Ibn Sa`d. Hence, `Aisha thought that it is permissible to suckle the man whom the woman needs to be allowed in her house. She used as evidence the Hadith of Salim, the freed slave of Abu Huzaifah, where the Prophet ordered Abu Huzaifah’s wife to give some of her milk to Salim, although he was a man, and ever since then, he used to enter her house freely. However, the rest of the Prophet’s wives did not agree with this opinion and thought that this was only a special case. This is also the opinion of the Majority of the scholars (Al-Jumhour). The evidence of the Majority of scholars who are the Four Imams, the Seven Jurists, eminent Companions and the rest of the Prophet’s wives except ‘Aisha, is what is reported in both Sahihs on authority of ‘Aisha that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “Be sure about your foster brothers, as fosterage is only valid if it takes place in the suckling period (before two years of age).” 
For more information regarding the juristic aspects of Sahla’s hadith, there is a very valuable Arabic book by Dr. Muhammad Al-Hifnawi, Ar-Redaa’ wa Bunouk-ul-Laban”(i.e., Nursing and Milk Banks) for those who are interested.
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 as the Prophet(P) said:
Fosterage is only valid if it takes place in the suckling period (before two years of age).
This is conclusion of the following authorities:
‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattab
‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal
Abu Thawr, and many others.
Imam Abu Hanifah is reported to have allowed additional six months after the two years, 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 madhab (i.e., school of thought) follow the view of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Ash-Shaybani. Yes, ‘Aisha did hold the view that nursing of adults is permissible, but her opinion cannot stand before the agreement of other wives of the Prophet(P), emienent Companions, Seven Jurists of Madinah (from the generation of Tabi’un) and the Four Imams. And Allah knows best.
Imam Al-Qurtubi in his commentary on Qur’an 2:233 notes the following:
Imam Malik (may Allah be Merciful to him), his followers and a group of scholars has gathered from this verse that nursing which is treated like blood relation is what takes place in the (first) two years; because after two years, nursing is over and there is no considerable nursing after two years. This is his statement in his Muwatta in the report of Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Hakam on his authority. This is the opinion of ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbas and it was reported on authority of Ibn Mas’ud. It was also stated by Az-Zuhri, Qatada, Ash-Shu’abi, Sufyan Ath-Thawri, Al-Awza’i, Ash-Shafi’i, Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Abu Thawr. Ibn Abdul-Hakam reported on his authority: “two years with additional few days”. Abdul-Malik, “like a month”. Ibn-ul-Qasim related on authority of Malik that he said, ?Nursing is (considerable within) two years and two months later”. Al-Walid Ibn Muslim related on his authority that he said, ?Nursing one, two or three months after the two years is still considered within the two years, whatever comes after this is nonsense?. It is reported on authority of (Abu Hanifah) An-Nu?man that he said, “What is after the two years up to six months is (considered) nursing”. But the authentic (opinion) is the first one due to His saying “The mothers shall give suck to their offspring for two whole years”. This indicates that there is no significance of whatever the newborn suckles after the age of two years. Sufyan related on authority of ?Amr Ibn Dinar on authority of Ibn bbas that he said, Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, ?There is no nursing but within the (first) two years?. Ad-Darqatni said, it is related on authority of Ibn ?Uyaiinah but by Al-Haytham Ibn Gamil and he is a trustworthy memorizer.
I say: This report in addition to the verse and its meaning disallows nursing of the adult and (indicates) that it has no significance. It was reported on authority of ‘Aisha that she endorsed it and it was the opinion of Al-Laith Ibn Sa’d among scholars. It was reported about Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari that he used to validate it and reported that he retracted this opinion.
Imam Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Qur’an 2:233 notes that:
The opinion that nursing does not establish fosterage after the age of two years is reported on authority of ‘Ali, Ibn ‘Abbas, Ibn Mas’ud, Gaber, Abu Huraira, Ibn ‘Umar, Umm Salma, Sa’id Ibn-ul-Musayyib, ‘Attaa and the Majority of Scholars (Al-Jumhour). This is the Mazhab (School of Though) of Ash-Shaf’i, Ahmad, Ishaq, Ath-Thawri, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Malik in one report on his authority. It is reported on his authority that it is two years and two months, and in another report, two years and three months. Abu Hanifah said: ?Two years and six months?. Zafar Ibn-ul-Huzayl said, ?As long as he suckles, it is up to three years? this is reported on authority of Al-Awza?i. Malik said, ?If the baby weans before the age of two years, then a woman suckles him after weaning, it does not establish fosterage because it becomes like food?, this is reported on authority of Al-Awza?i. It is reported on authority of ‘Umar and ‘Ali that they said, ?No nursing after weaning?. It is probable they meant either the two years as the Majority state whether he weans or not, or the act itself as Malik said, and Allah knows best.
It is reported in both Sahihs that `Aisha thought that if a woman gives her milk to an older person (meaning beyond the age of two years) then this will establish fosterage. This is also the opinion of `Ata’ Ibn Abu Rabah and Al-Laith Ibn Sa`d. Hence, `Aisha thought that it is permissible to suckle the man whom the woman needs to be allowed in her house. She used as evidence the Had?th of Sal?m, the freed slave of Abu Huzaifah, where the Prophet ordered Abu Huzaifah’s wife to give some of her milk to Salim, although he was a man, and ever since then, he used to enter her house freely. However, the rest of the Prophet’s wives did not agree with this opinion and thought that this was only a special case. This is also the opinion of the Majority of the scholars (Al-Jumhour). The evidence of the Majority of scholars who are the Four Imams, the Seven Jurists, eminent Companions and the rest of the Prophet?s wives except ?Aisha, is what is reported in both Sahihs on authority of ‘Aisha that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “Be sure about your foster brothers, as fosterage is only valid if it takes place in the suckling period (before two years of age).”
Did Paul Had Homosexual Urges?
Sam Shamoun concluded his disgusting paper with the following:
Whatever interpretation Aisha, Umar and Ibn Masud may have given to Muhammad’s instruction later on (correctly or incorrectly), the fact that Muhammad would command a woman to nurse a young man is shameful and disgusting to say the least.
Since we have refuted in detail the distortion concocted by Sam Shamoun, let us now turn the tables upon him and apply his own perverted thoughts upon the Christian religious personalities in order to see its outcome. In the book of Acts we are informed that Paul had Timothy circumcised:
1: And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewess that believed; but his father was a Greek.
2: The same was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
3: Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Paul circumcised Timothy because he was facing stiff opposition from the Jews. Thus, in order to avoid getting into more trouble Paul had Timothy circumcised, even though Timothy’s father happened to be a Greek Gentile. But why was the circumcision debate important for the Jews whom Paul wanted to pacify?
To some Gentile readers, this circumcision debate might seem peripheral. Some men are circumcised, others not – so what? In order to see the revolution that Paul was effecting within Jewish circles (or satellites) we turn to the old rabbinic texts. The rabbis considered circumcision so important that they declared 6 that were it not for the blood of the covenant – that is to say, the blood which flowed from Abraham’s penis when, at God’s insistence, he circumcised himself – heaven and earth would not exist. The teaching of Judaism was that a child must still shed the blood of a covenant…even if he is born without a foreskin, and even if for some medical or other reason he is circumcised before the mystical eighth day. Even the angels are circumcised….
Converts to Judaism in the Roman period had to undergo circumcision….Strangely enough, in Palestine rules were more liberal than in the Diaspora, and there were Proselytes of the Gate, as they were known, who were allowed to ‘become Jews’ without circumcision. But such was not the general rule. It was widely believed that the admission of uncircumcised men into Jewish religious worship ‘impeded the arrival of the Messiah’. While ‘semi-converts’ were allowed, those who observed the Sabbath and the dietary laws, they were to be regarded as heathens if after a twelve-month period they had not undergone circumcision. These stringent rules did not deter converts….
So now we need to ask, how was circumcision practised then? What was the method used in those days to circumcise someone? A. N. Wilson further explains that:
By Roman times, circumcision was done with a metal knife, and, if we believe that Paul did insist on Timothy undergoing circumcision, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of the three essential parts of the ritual, without which it is not complete. The first part is milah, the cutting away of the outer part of the foreskin. The is done with one sweep of the knife. The second part, periah, is the tearing of the inner lining of the foreskin which still adheres to the gland, so as to lay it wholly bare. This was (and is) done by the operator – the mohel, the professional circumciser – with his thumb-nail and index finger. The third and essential part of the ritual is mesisah, the sucking of blood from the wound. Since the nineteenth century, it has been permissible to finish this part of the ritual with a swab, but in all preceding centuries and certainly in the time of Paul it was necessary for the mohel to clean the wound by taking the penis into his mouth. In the case of a young adult male such as Timothy the bleeding would have been copious. We can easily imagine why Paul’s Gentile converts were unwilling to undergo the ritual; and, given the more liberal attitudes towards the Torah which had already begun to emerge among the Hellenists of Syrian Antioch, it is not surprising that the custom of circumcision should have started to wane. It took the extremism of Paul to think that the knife of circumcision would actually ‘cut you…off from Christ’.
In other words, Paul had to take the penis of Timothy in his mouth in order to circumcise him! Note also how strongly Paul opposes circumcision elsewhere in the New Testament:
2: Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.
3: Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4: Ye are severed from Christ, ye would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.
5: For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness.
6: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love.2
However, when it came to saving himself from some trouble, Paul immediately had Timothy circumcised so that the Jews would not bother him any further. Since we are aware of Paul’s intense opposition to circumcision no matter what the reasons are, surely his circumcision of Timothy indicates the hidden homosexual desires that he wished to fulfill at least once in his lifetime? He probably had a deep desire to take a penis into his mouth, so when an opportunity comes along, he decided to avail it. Hence he now has a good excuse to take a penis into his mouth and no one could object to that.
One cannot claim that someone other than Paul had circumcised Timothy, because it is clearly stated that it was Paul who had circumcised him. There was no pressing need for Paul to circumcise Timothy if indeed he was taunchly opposed to the practise, as related in the account in Galatians. But that he did went ahead and conducted the circumcision gives us a reason to pause, as it suggests that he had homosexual urges.
Now it is our turn to say:
Whatever interpretation Christians may have given to Paul’s action later on (whether correctly or incorrectly), the fact that Paul would put the penis of an adult man in his mouth is shameful and disgusting to say the least.
Please note that if such a tradition was located within any Islamic literature or in the Qur’an, and if it is required to take the private organ with one’s mouth, the above is precisely the type of argument Sam Shamoun would have vigorously launched in his papers, in order to demonise Muslims and their religion. Hence the above paragraph is in reality the outcome if one happens to think like a pervert as Sam Shamoun obviously is.
What leads Sam Shamoun to be such a pervert and think like a mindless idiot? Is it because he is so “bright” and “intelligent” that he happens to be the only person on this planet who “understood” the tradition relating to Sahl bint Suhail correctly whereas everyone else on this planet had failed to comprehend it? This is surely an unlikely, nay, an impossible, presumption. The reason why Sam Shamoun thinks the way that he does – which leads him to distort, misread and misinterpret simple straightforward passages – is not because he is “bright” but because he is a hate-filled bigot who lacks elementary intelligence. When the two combine and form a unit, that is hate + mediocre intelligence, the result is Shamounion interpretations — which are essentially stupid misreadings of the texts.
And only God knows best!
Addendum: Our Challenge to Sam Shamoun
The missionary is now required to offer an unconditional apology for concocting and spreading a vicious lie in order to abuse the Prophet(P) and the religion of Islam. He is required to remove the factually-erroneous and logically nonsensical paper from his website. If, however, he starts whining over something absolutely irrelevant and besides the point, then that would be taken as an indication of his denial of reality and his severe, mental imbalance. Similarly, his notorious strategy of sending a number of highly abusive e-mails to Muslims will not accomplish anything in trying to cover his gross misuse and misreading of a non-controversial, straightforward passage. Someone who lacks such elementary intelligence, so much so that it drives him mad to the point of twisting and misusing straightforward passages, have absolutely no right to author papers concerning any aspect of Islam (or any topic for that matter), unless and until he makes an attempt to increase the level of his dwindling mental cognizance.
We now await for his apology for spreading such a vicious and blatant lie about Islam.
 Ibid., Number 813
 Ibid., Number 814
 Ibid., Number 815
 Ibn Sa?ad, Kitab At-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, Vol. 10, p. 257. Also see Ibn Hajar, Al-Isabah, Vol. 7, p. 717
 Sahih Muslim, Volume 5, Book 8, Number 3424
 Ibid., Number 3425
 Ibid., Number 3427
 Ibid., Number 3428
 Sahih-ul-Bukhari, Op. Cit., Number 815
 Ibn Kathir, Tafsir-ul-Qur?an Al-?Azim, Volume 1, page 358. Published by Maktabat-ul-Iman, Mansoura, Egypt
 Sahih-ul-Bukhari, Op. Cit.
 Al-Qurtubi, Al-Game? le Ahkam-el-Qur?an, Vol. 2, (Dar-ul-Had?th, Cairo, Egypt), pp. 139-140
 Ibn Kathir, Tafsir-ul-Qur?an Al-?Azim, Vol. 1, (Maktabat-ul-Iman, Mansoura, Egypt), p. 358
 Acts 16:3, American Standard Version [Online Document]
 A. N. Wilson, Paul The Mind Of The Apostle, (Pimlico, 1998), p. 128
 Ibid., p. 131