The Muslim jurists have analyzed the prohibitions for a marriage contract under two categories: permanent and temporary. Permanent prohibitions on marriage are divided into three categories: blood, milk siblinghood and consanguinity. There is no dispute among the jurists about the prohibition of blood and milk siblinghood, but there is a dispute about kinship by marriage. This kinship arising from the marriage between the parties is referred to in classical fiqh literature as the intimacy of kinship (hurmat-i musāhara). In this context, it has been a matter of debate among jurists whether adultery, like marriage, requires a prohibition of marriage. The history of this debate goes back to the Companions, the tāâbiīîn and the taba-i tābiīn. This issue, which was a matter of debate among the first three generations, was also debated among the imams of the fiqh schools. Thus, two views have emerged in the doctrine regarding the problem of whether adultery requires hurmat al-musāhara. According to the first view, which is held by the majority of Hanafis, Hanbalis and Shi'a jurists, adultery requires hurmat al-musāharah. According to the second view, advocated by the Shafi'is, Malikis, Zahiris, and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, hurmat al-musahara is not established by adultery. In this case, it is permissible for the parties to marry each other's usūl and furu. In classical fiqh sources, the question of whether it is halal to marry the daughter of adultery is discussed in connection with this issue. According to the jurists who hold that adultery entails the intimacy of consanguinity, it is forbidden for the adulterer to marry his daughter of adultery. According to the jurists who hold this view, sexual intercourse requires prohibition, regardless of whether it is through lawful means, such as nikah, or unlawful means, such as fornication (zina). According to them, in this case, it is the child itself, not the adultery, that requires the intimacy of kinship. Therefore, the cause/sexual intercourse has replaced the causative agent/child. These opinion holders have argued that the existence of the link of juz'iyyah between the adulterer and the daughter resulting from adultery is a proper cause for prohibition. This is because a doubt functions as truth when it comes to necessitating haram. According to the jurists who hold that adultery does not require the intimacy of kinship, it is makrooh but permissible for the adulterer to marry the daughter of adultery. The jurists who hold this view point to the absence of any verse or hadith on the subject, as well as the difference between adultery and nikah. Accordingly, even though the progeny of the daughter resulting from adultery exists by the mother/mazniyahe, the progeny is not considered valid by the adulterous man/zâni. Therefore, there is no juz'iyyah link between the adulterer and the girl who is the product of adultery. The jurists who hold this view have stated that juz'iyyah is not a proper cause for prohibition. One of their main points is that the rulings that are established by marriage, such as linkage and maintenance payment, are not established by adultery. The main purpose of this study is to justify Shafi'i's view that adultery does not require hurmat al-musāharah. As far as we have been able to determine, there is no specific study on the justification of Shafi'i's view on this issue. In addition, it is possible to say that there is no study on how this view defended by Shafi'i was interpreted within the Shafi’i school and what the approaches of Shi'i and Zahiri jurists were on the subject. This study first examines the opinions and justifications of the jurists on whether adultery requires hurmat al-musāharah or not. Then, the opinions and justifications of Shafi'i and Shafi'i jurists on the subject were mentioned, and in this respect, the logic of fiqh defended by Shafi'i was tried to be revealed. The opinions and justifications on the subject were analyzed based on the main fiqh works of each school. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]