Thanks, I really think we're making progress now.

In case you didn't notice, my question is not about sexual morality or 'sin' or who the husband was allowed to marry or whether he was entitled to have favourites. (As much as some people might enjoy discussing those topics.)

Here's the reconstructed narrative I posted on 23-Oct.

Aside from the word 'concubine' (already amended to 'wife'), is there anything else in that narrative (above) which is not generally agreed by everyone? 

Allah SubHanuhu wa Ta'ala is the Lord and Creator of the Prophets and they are His beloved. He can mention their mistakes in whatever way He wishes and they can demonstrate their humility to Him in whatever way they wish. We have no right to speak about their mistakes or disrespect and slander them unless we want our record books blackened with sins. Allah SubHanuhu wa Ta'ala has ordered us to respect and revere His Prophets. If a Prophet became a sinner, both opposing him and obeying him would become necessary, and this is a concentration of two opposite things. So, the majority of the Scholars including the Imams of the Four Schools of Law followed what they considered to be the stronger position, namely that Prophets are protected even from minor sins. Beware... Beware.. Beware O My Muslim Brothers and Sisters!! To disrespect any Prophet, to find any faults or defect in them or to be rude or insolent to these Prophets is Kufr (Infidelity).

 http://www.ahlesunnat.net/media-library/downloads/regularupdates/infallibilityofprophets.htm

It may surprise you to discover that I'm not raising objections to polygamy and I'm not saying that the husband by 'managing' information was therefore guilty of any offence - legal or moral. I assume he had good reasons to act in that way, possibly something to do with local cultural norms of that era. I also assume that the Qur'an has good reasons for condoning those actions for all believers, for all time. My problem is that those reasons are not self-evident, at least not to me, not yet.

Regarding my daughters: One day I imagine they too will stumble upon S66 and be gobsmacked by the same perplexing questions. I hope that by then I will have found an answer that might comfort them, supposing they ask me. (Surely, that's what any father would do.) Unfortunately, the rhetorical images of suspending, falling, breaking and burying are way too figurative and poetic for my feeble mind to grasp. If you want to change my thinking you may wish to try a different approach. Plain, everyday English prose usually works pretty well.

Looking at S66 in isolation, the combined weight of sunna plus Qur'an could be used to justify any sort of cover-up, whenever the facts are felt to be inconvenient.

Presumably there are limits on such duplicity, but what are they? How do we deduce them from Qur'an or Hadith? Is the 'licence to deceive' reserved for certain situations only?

Or should the whole episode be regarded as a special case, not for others to emulate, since this particular husband (alone) 'was given the freedom to do whatever he wanted'?

Prior to the revelation of Sura 66 the husband went to considerable lengths in order to appease his frustrated wives. He undertook to give equal attention to each in turn, and also to abstain from further relations with a particularly beautiful concubine, who was the focus of their jealousy. (Some 'G-rated' commentaries talk instead of a 'honey pot'. Either way makes little difference to the core principles involved.)

In making this concession he had unwittingly spurned the unique honour of conjugal privileges given to him (alone) in S33:50-51, thereby offending the giver. That was his only mistake, for which he receives a gentle reprimand.

Some time later(?) - but before S66 was revealed - the husband realised that there was in fact no binding commitment.  Thus freed from any moral obligation he resumed relations with the same concubine, in secret. Things went smoothly until he was 'caught in the act' by one of his jealous wives. Damage control then required her silence. She duly swore she would keep the matter secret, but then broke her promise and told the other wives. As finally revealed, Sura 66 deals severely with gossiping and eavesdropping, but tacitly approves of the husband's duplicity, secrecy and attempted cover-up.

Following an identical set of principles, the US Government now seeks to punish and make an example of Pvt Bradley Manning (for breaking an oath of secrecy) and Wikileaks (for incitement and spreading the secrets) while blatantly and shamelessly ignoring the much bigger moral issues - simply because the embarrassing facts were 'classified information' according to ... the US Government.

Supporters of the US say that's just an unavoidable part of being a world superpower. Even when you're the 'good guys', there will always be embarrassing facts that need to be kept from the people - and to think otherwise is just naive or st**id. Maybe the same is also true for a household comprising several wives. It would certainly explain a lot.

Assalamu alaika nospam001.

I thought you are referring toS.65.

Madinan verses refers to the lifehistory /Sunna/Sharia/ of Muhammad Rasulullah. They have to be understoodaccording to the way he explained them. No one has the authority to mutilatehis explanation as such incidents or actions were witnessed by Allah and then commanded Muhammad on what to do. The Shari’a was not a cowboy action, a fairytale, folk tales or something of amusement and play. It is only what Allahcommanded Muhammad. Remember that homicide became a crime only after Abelkilled Cain. I will try to explain to you briefly. However note that you didnot mention the verses to be explained.

1.     The Shari’a of Muhammad was whatAllah commanded him following his action. That action in most cases was neverdone by a prophet or messenger before him for Muhammad was guided by previous Shari'a.

2.     As exemplary to mankind allactions stem from him and thus the Shari’a. No one can claim inability to beguided on such trivial issues since Muhammad stood as a man created to obeyAllah. (Unless scientists could be allowed to have a sample of the holyapostles DNA and then prove that we have a different gene that made us disobeyAllah, no one has an excuse of disobeying Allah).

Thanks abuayisha. We do seem to be approaching a common understanding. Yes, Sura 66 deals with a woman's jealousy. More precisely it deals with her jealous reaction to certain acts and omissions by her husband. Those same acts and omissions are referred to in the sura but are not 'dealt with' - with one notable exception, namely the husband's effrontery in setting a limit on the special freedoms previously granted to him.

Trying to keep it simple I was assuming that the answer to my original questions would not depend on gender. Clearly not everyone thinks that way. In Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, for example, Count Vronsky observes a moral principle that "one must never lie to a man, but one may to a woman." He would have seen nothing wrong in rebuking a woman for feeling cheated, while condoning her husband's attempt to hide the truth from her. Indeed, maybe that is the norm and anything else is the work of Shaytaan.