Print Page | Close Window

Contracts & technical loopholes - what is

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24006
Printed Date: 24 October 2014 at 4:19am


Topic: Contracts & technical loopholes - what is
Posted By: nospam001
Subject: Contracts & technical loopholes - what is
Date Posted: 02 October 2012 at 7:54pm
Please help me with some moral guidance for this hypothetical scenario:

Suppose I promise something to you but later I discover a technical loophole that means my promise was invalid and is therefore not legally binding. Is it OK for me to start exploiting that advantage straight away, in secret, without telling you first?

If someone else finds out what I'm doing, can I make them promise not to tell you? Supposing you do hear about it and then feel 'cheated', would you deserve to be rebuked for failing to recognise the loophole yourself?

Are there any sura/hadith that clarify what is acceptable? For example, does the answer depend on other details not already specified above?



Replies:
Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 03 October 2012 at 2:18pm
Assalamu alaika. nospam001.
 
Since you are a male agnostic, I do not know how to explain what Muhammad said. Just to know that hypothetical situations are not part of the Sunna of Muhammad. Muhamamd and hence Islam respects all forms of submission to Allah. What is it in agnostism?
 
Friendship


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 03 October 2012 at 3:02pm
Thank you for your reply.

Although my scenario is hypothetical, the same actions do seem to be condoned in Sura 66 (Al-Tahreem). Supposing this is true - and it is consistent with several respected commentaries - then I'm wondering if that sets a precedent for others to follow, or if there is some other fatwa or piece of scripture that explains why it should not apply universally with the authority of both Qur'an and Sunnah.

An agnostic is simply someone who is unsure what to believe. Other than that, there's no set of beliefs or practices that define 'agnosticism'.


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 04 October 2012 at 10:20pm
Assalamu alaika nospam001.

I am extremely delighted by your honest comment. I will give the glad tidings of what Muhammad told his arch enemy his cousin/nephew Abu Jahl who was called Abu Hakeem ( the father of wisdom) before the beginning of revelation. Muhammad told him it is impossible that you do not understand the G-d of Abraham. We also read that Khalid ibn Walid confessed that at the beginning of revelation he did not put any interest and concern in  hearing what Muhammad was saying. He was then a young lad probably about 17 years old.
It is impossible for one not to be sure what to believe. It is not allowed in Islam to waste time and to talk to one outside the sphere he will understand Muhammad for every second is important. Please tell us your profession so that you will the sign that will make you sure to believe in Muhammad.

Friendship.


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 04 October 2012 at 11:07pm
Originally posted by Friendship

Please tell us your profession so that you will the sign that will make you sure to believe in Muhammad.

The hypothetical scenario above has nothing to do with my own profession as data analyst. I'm sorry if my second post didn't make that clear.

Are you saying an agnostic is someone who already believes in Islam - unconsciously - therefore there is no need to discuss further?

-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 05 October 2012 at 10:09pm
Assalamu alaika nospam001.

Sorry my brother. You can only deal with terrorism, Al-Qaeda and Taliban if you listen understand and help in establishing the true Islam that is the Sunna of Muhammad Rasulullah. Listen Muhammad calls and directs one to speak to one according to his baseline and mental capacity. I have already made it clear that Allah mentions infertility in the Qur'an. Muhammad did not mention the causes. But gave a lead to fusion of sperm and ova. I said, bring medical personnel from all walks of faith or what you call religion to mention the causes of infertility. Will they speak the same thing?
Data analysis is knew but probably close to epidemiology my field of study. Is it so that I can discuss on that line?

Friendship.


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 06 October 2012 at 5:07pm
My question is about Sura 66 and whether that particular form of tactical deception is condoned for all Muslims, or has it been excluded from sunnah by some other fatwa or piece of scripture.

I realise that it can be helpful and persuasive to use carefully chosen examples that your audience can relate to. However, this strategy can backfire if the specific details divert attention from the more general and abstract 'core' of the question. That's what I was trying to avoid in my original post, where I was careful not to mention Sura 66. The apparent precedent (given its documented context) is clear enough that one could use a simple analogy involving children without any loss of relevance, as far as moral guidance is concerned.

But if you think it will help, do feel free to draw on epidemiology. I'm always curious to learn...

-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 07 October 2012 at 12:48am
Assalamu alaika. nospam001

First of all you have to put your coordinates correct.
You said earlier on: An agnostic is simply someone who is unsure what to believe. It seems you do not have an authority transcending through every matter. There are no basic facts evidences subjected to you as coordinates to stimulate you to think. Imagine this verse: Does not man remember that We created him before, while he was nothing? The next verse says: So by your Lord, surely, We shall gather them.....(Qur'an 19:67-68).

Sura 66 is a Madinan Sura attached to Sura 2. I cannot find anything leading to deception in the Sura.  Also note that your saying or understanding that: ... or has it been excluded from sunnah by some other fatwa or piece of scripture... is wrong and not accepted. There is no fatwa that obliterates the Sunna. This what the Wahabis and Salafis are confusing you with. Fatwa is actually an elucidation on the Sunna and never intends to be making a 'law'. 
Probably you do not understand what is 'epidemiology'. Epidemiology is to relate cause with incidents. The best example is that of tracing the cause of 'cholera' in London to a tap of water. That data is still valid today. Now who is the G-d of Abraham? Is he still the same G-d of one created from a male and a female? For what purpose was Abraham created?

Friendship.



Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 07 October 2012 at 3:07am
I'm sorry for tiptoeing so delicately around the subject, but I really don't want to cause offence. Hopefully there's someone else reading this thread who is already acquainted with these moral questions, and who can point me to an authority that settles the matter using clear and precise logic. I'll then be one step closer to accepting Islam.

-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 07 October 2012 at 5:41am
In my dealings with atheists, theists, agnostics, unbelievers and the downright criminals is that it is like you are talking to a brick wall as they have no faith to begin with. No matter how much you reason with them, they will find an excuse to rebuttle and rebuke because they did not understood in the first place.

No offence intended to any atheists, thiests, agnositcs and the downright criminals.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 07 October 2012 at 10:08am
nospamoo1, This surah basically deals with a woman's jealousy, and I think it would be helpful to pose your understanding of the verse and ask any clarifying questions you may have.  I can only assume from your hypothetical analogy that perhaps you don't understand the context of this verse, and the issue of making oaths to Allah in Islam.  One of the scholars of Islam once said, 'if I ask you to touch your ear, one would not expect that you would wrap your arm around the back of your head to reach your right ear using your left hand.'  Let's just keep it simple.


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 10 October 2012 at 2:57pm

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.



-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 11 October 2012 at 12:45pm
Originally posted by nospam001

I'm sorry for tiptoeing so delicately around the subject, but I really don't want to cause offence. Hopefully there's someone else reading this thread who is already acquainted with these moral questions, and who can point me to an authority that settles the matter using clear and precise logic. I'll then be one step closer to accepting Islam.


As'alaamu Alaikkum

If the reason for you in accepting Islam hangs on this answer then don't accept Islam, you will be accepting Islam for the wrong reasons. Accept it only if you truly love God and you truly believe that there is no god but Allah and Muhammed (pbuh) is His slave and Messenger. Also you must make an oath to yourself that you will pray at the stipulated times, give to charity, fast and go on pilgrimage when you can afford to do so.

Don't play silly games with your salvation.


Posted By: nothing
Date Posted: 11 October 2012 at 2:09pm
Surah 66 giving us picture about his life with his wives. Here we can see that Muhammad as normal human with weakness toward his wives, in contrast what we have been hearing all the time that he was tough and dominant husband. Read this in conjunction with this verse below and you will see the picture better.

"And you will never be able to be equal [in feeling] between wives, even if you should strive [to do so]. So do not incline completely [toward one] and leave another hanging. And if you amend [your affairs] and fear Allah - then indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful." (4:129)




Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 11 October 2012 at 2:35pm
Well certainly "simple" is relative, anyway, perhaps our Prophet's response was because of collusion, however there are several other instances of acts of jealously from his wife that he seemed to have taken lightly and in good cheer. I think with respect to rebuke and feeling cheated, men and women are equals.


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 19 October 2012 at 8:53pm
So far no-one has stepped forward to defend the moral correctness of the husband's actions. It seems like a very simple and clear-cut question, until one utters his name. That is when things suddenly get complicated, so I can totally understand people's difficulty with 'joining the dots'. Especially when we consider a few of the hadith that deal with untruthful behaviour, e.g. al-Bukhari, 33 & 1973.

As possible mitigating factors, it has been suggested above that perhaps the original 'promise' was made either 'lightly' (in jest) or under duress. Viewed in this way, the subterfuge that followed was a benevolent act, so that his dearest wife would be spared the unnecessary pain of feeling cheated.

I don't want to insult anyone by pointing to chapter and verse. If you find this approach too complicated then I suggest you choose a commentary of Sura 66 by any respected Muslim scholar, in any language. You'll soon have enough detail to fill in what I've left out. It's all in there, and the scholars evidently don't have a problem with it. This only reinforces the principle implied in the sura itself: that it doesn't matter what you say to your wife, if it stops her nagging. (But next time, be careful not to make a promise that is beyond your authority, okay?)

My daughters (both Muslims) have been taught there are no 'bad' questions. Is it really a 'silly game' for me to ask for clarification, on their behalf?


-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 20 October 2012 at 2:44am
Originally posted by nospam001

So far no-one has stepped forward to defend the moral correctness of the husband's actions. It seems like a very simple and clear-cut question, until one utters his name. That is when things suddenly get complicated, so I can totally understand people's difficulty with 'joining the dots'. Especially when we consider a few of the hadith that deal with untruthful behaviour, e.g. al-Bukhari, 33 & 1973.

As possible mitigating factors, it has been suggested above that perhaps the original 'promise' was made either 'lightly' (in jest) or under duress. Viewed in this way, the subterfuge that followed was a benevolent act, so that his dearest wife would be spared the unnecessary pain of feeling cheated.

I don't want to insult anyone by pointing to chapter and verse. If you find this approach too complicated then I suggest you choose a commentary of Sura 66 by any respected Muslim scholar, in any language. You'll soon have enough detail to fill in what I've left out. It's all in there, and the scholars evidently don't have a problem with it. This only reinforces the principle implied in the sura itself: that it doesn't matter what you say to your wife, if it stops her nagging. (But next time, be careful not to make a promise that is beyond your authority, okay?)

My daughters (both Muslims) have been taught there are no 'bad' questions. Is it really a 'silly game' for me to ask for clarification, on their behalf?


Stop beating around the bush and ask clearly and precisely what you want to know. I think I'm right in saying that Muslims at this forum will not be offended.


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 20 October 2012 at 3:43am

Assalamu alaika nospam001.

 

I thought you are referring to S.65.

Madinan verses refers to the life history /Sunna/Sharia/ of Muhammad Rasulullah. They have to be understood according to the way he explained them. No one has the authority to mutilate his 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 fairy tale, folk tales or something of amusement and play. It is only what Allah commanded Muhammad. Remember that homicide became a crime only after Abel killed Cain. I will try to explain to you briefly. However note that you did not mention the verses to be explained.

1.      The Shari’a of Muhammad was what Allah commanded him following his action. That action in most cases was never done by a prophet or messenger before him for Muhammad was guided by previous Shari'a.

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

 With reference to 66:3, the Shari’a is on those practicing polygamy. That human nature stemmed from polygamy. It is a trivial issue (called lamama) that is forgiven by Allah on doing good deeds.The details are given Maududis, and Syed Qutb translations of the Qur’an. I am not a polygamist and as such I cannot elaborate on my personal experience. 
From this Shari'a wire tapping, eves dropping etc are not allowed. The case of Rupert Mudock proved the universality of the Shari'a of Muhammad.
Nospam001, it is high time YOU join your two daughters. You are causing an anguish on them. Please love them and show leniency. Why are you leaving them suspended in the air? Do you want them to fall down and break their bones? Who stopped the burying of the female infants? Think of your action towards your beautiful innocent female children! Any difference? Muhammad is certainly a mercy to you NOSPAM001.

Friendship.
 


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 22 October 2012 at 3:57pm

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Stop beating around the bush and ask clearly and precisely what you want to know. I think I'm right in saying that Muslims at this forum will not be offended.

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.



-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 23 October 2012 at 2:54am
Originally posted by nospam001

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.

What's the confusion? The Prophet Pbuh) has been given special privileges thus the reason why Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala scolds the Prophet (pbuh) in saying "O Prophet why do you make unlawful what I have made lawful for you" (paraphrased).
 
The 'honeypot' scenario is also clearly explained in the Holy Qur'an.
 
As a side note : The Prophet indeed had his favourites, Zainab bint Jahsh and Aisha (Allah be pleased with them). This was not illegal in any sense of the word because the Prophet (pbuh) was given the freedom to do whatever he wanted. Some of the wives in understanding this gave up their visiting rights so that the could spend more time with them.
 
If you read his hadiths he constantly tells people that he is just a human being and he makes mistakes and has human desires just like you and me.
 
 


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 23 October 2012 at 3:32pm

Originally posted by Abu Loren

What's the confusion? The Prophet Pbuh) has been given special privileges...the Prophet (pbuh) was given the freedom to do whatever he wanted.
Note that the words 'duplicity, secrecy and cover-up' passed by unchallenged, which is my main point.

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'?



-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 23 October 2012 at 8:07pm

Originally posted by Friendship

Nospam001, it is high time YOU join your two daughters. You are causing an anguish on them. Please love them and show leniency. Why are you leaving them suspended in the air? Do you want them to fall down and break their bones? Who stopped the burying of the female infants? Think of your action towards your beautiful innocent female children! Any difference? Muhammad is certainly a mercy to you NOSPAM001.
Since you ask: I was born and raised in an agnostic family or, if you prefer, Allah () has chosen to lead me astray as an example to others. Either way, I cannot start believing in something before it makes sense to me. (Not everyone has the same handicap, as I'm beginning to realise.)

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.
Wink



-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 24 October 2012 at 3:00am
Originally posted by nospam001

Note that the words 'duplicity, secrecy and cover-up' passed by unchallenged, which is my main point.

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'?

 
For your information, duplicity, secrecy and cover-up was exposed by God Himself so what further judgement do you need?
 
If you really believe that the combined weight of sunna plus Qur'an has been used to cover up a fault then that's your AGNOSTIC view.
 
What people like you should do is fall down in prostration to the One True God and ask for repentence and seek guidance from him so that you are given knowledge and wisdom. No human being can help you if yo do not have God as a helper. Those whom He guides nobody can mis-guide and those whom he mis-guides nobody can guide.
 
If you always look for proof then you will never accept faith. Can you stand on top of a mountain and jump believing God can save you? Or are you a person who wants to look at the safety feature down below before you jump?


Posted By: nothing
Date Posted: 24 October 2012 at 1:21pm
Originally posted by nospam001

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.

I have read once long time ago a small book about the Prophet's wives, it did not mention concubine or sort, unless if I missed it. To add more to it I am not fond with hadiths so that create a problem in the way I try to catch up with your point. It does seem though that this concubine is the engine of this thread. Who was she? The story I heard from one perspective, it was about honey smell, that is where the Prophet promised would not touch it again. So can you tell about who was that beautiful concubine, thanks.


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 24 October 2012 at 3:20pm

Originally posted by nothing

I have read once long time ago a small book about the Prophet's wives, it did not mention concubine or sort, unless if I missed it. To add more to it I am not fond with hadiths so that create a problem in the way I try to catch up with your point. It does seem though that this concubine is the engine of this thread. Who was she? The story I heard from one perspective, it was about honey smell, that is where the Prophet promised would not touch it again. So can you tell about who was that beautiful concubine, thanks.
The 'concubine' referred to in most commentaries was Maria al-Qibtiyya ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_al-Qibtiyya - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_al-Qibtiyya ).

However, let me repeat: 'concubine' or 'honey pot' makes no difference. The 'engine' of this thread, to me anyway, is that Sura 66 deals severely with gossiping and eavesdropping, but tacitly approves of the husband's duplicity, secrecy and attempted cover-up i.e. it condones the fact that he acted in secret, contrary to an earlier understanding or promise and then, when found out, tried to stop the truth from spreading. These points are not disputed anywhere, as far as I can tell. 

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.

In this discussion, I am not looking for 'proof' - just a clarification that makes sense. Is that too much to hope for?


-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 29 October 2012 at 11:47am
Originally posted by nospam001

The 'concubine' referred to in most commentaries was Maria al-Qibtiyya ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_al-Qibtiyya - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_al-Qibtiyya ).

However, let me repeat: 'concubine' or 'honey pot' makes no difference. The 'engine' of this thread, to me anyway, is that Sura 66 deals severely with gossiping and eavesdropping, but tacitly approves of the husband's duplicity, secrecy and attempted cover-up i.e. it condones the fact that he acted in secret, contrary to an earlier understanding or promise and then, when found out, tried to stop the truth from spreading. These points are not disputed anywhere, as far as I can tell. 

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.

In this discussion, I am not looking for 'proof' - just a clarification that makes sense. Is that too much to hope for?


If you had read and understood the opening verse of Surah 66 then you would have known that the Prophet was given privileges.

Sahih International

O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
66:1

O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess, [but this is for you] in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful. 33:50



Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 30 October 2012 at 12:55am
Originally posted by Abu Loren

If you had read and understood the opening verse of Surah 66 then you would have known that the Prophet was given privileges.
Yes, but did those privileges also include the special freedoms to act in secret, contrary to an earlier understanding or promise and (when found out) to stop the truth from spreading? If so then please say where. I can't find it in 33:50.

-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: nothing
Date Posted: 30 October 2012 at 11:50pm
Originally posted by nospam001

The 'concubine' referred to in most commentaries was Maria al-Qibtiyya ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_al-Qibtiyya - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_al-Qibtiyya ).

Ok I will only to add my input concerning the above Mary the Copt position from the way I understand. The governor of Egypt sent the gift to the Prophet, and the gift were two slave girls, they were sisters, Mary and Serene. Since the Islamic injunction states a man can not marry sisters at the same time therefore the Prophet passed on Sirin to one of his companion.
Mary gave him a son by the name Ibrohim. That was the reason he stopped by her house more than agreed, not for sex but to visit his son. But the other wives still did not like it regardless.

Anyway that is my input concerning the irregular visit. So what do you think, sound reasonable?


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 31 October 2012 at 12:47am
Originally posted by nothing

Originally posted by nospam001

The 'concubine' referred to in most commentaries was Maria al-Qibtiyya ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_al-Qibtiyya - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_al-Qibtiyya ).

Ok I will only to add my input concerning the above Mary the Copt position from the way I understand. The governor of Egypt sent the gift to the Prophet, and the gift were two slave girls, they were sisters, Mary and Serene. Since the Islamic injunction states a man can not marry sisters at the same time therefore the Prophet passed on Sirin to one of his companion.
Mary gave him a son by the name Ibrohim. That was the reason he stopped by her house more than agreed, not for sex but to visit his son. But the other wives still did not like it regardless.

Anyway that is my input concerning the irregular visit. So what do you think, sound reasonable?
 
This nospam001 is here looking for trouble. There is no proof whatsoever that Maria was a concubine of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) but rather his wife. If wikipedia is his source of reference then the same people lists his wives as thus :-
 
Prophet Muhammad (saw) had 12 wives, 9 were alive at the time of his death.

1.Hazrat Khadija Bint Khuwaylid, the only wife during his youth.

He married the rest in the following order after Khadija's death. They were all for social reasons (eg. widow, divorcee). The reason he had more than 4 wives, which is the maximum allowed, is that the verse limiting the number of wives was revealed after his marriages. After the revelation of the verse, he did not marry any more.

2. Hazrat Sawada Bint Zam'a

3. Hazrat A'isha Bint Abu Bakr

4.Hazrat Hafsa Bint 'Umar
 
5.Hazrat Zaynab Bint Khuzayma
 
6.Hazrat Ummay Salama Hind Bint Abi Umayya
 
7.Hazrat Zaynab Bint Jahsh
 
8.Hazrat Juwayria Bint Al-Haritha
 
9. Hazrat Umm Habiba Ramla Bint Bint Abi Sufyan
 
10.Hazrat Safya Bint Huyayya

11.Hazrat Maymuna Bint Al-Haritha
 
12.Hazrat Maria al-Qibtiyya
 
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Names_of_the_wives_of_Prophet_Muhammad_in_order_please - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Names_of_the_wives_of_Prophet_Muhammad_in_order_please


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 31 October 2012 at 7:15pm

Originally posted by nothing

...he stopped by her house more than agreed, not for sex but to visit his son. But the other wives still did not like it regardless.
Originally posted by Abu Loren

There is no proof whatsoever that Maria was a concubine of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) but rather his wife.
We seem to be getting off the topic here. What does this have to do with my original questions about duplicity, secrecy & cover-up?

 



-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 01 November 2012 at 12:41am
Originally posted by nospam001

We seem to be getting off the topic here. What does this have to do with my original questions about duplicity, secrecy & cover-up?
 

 
Well you brought up the subject of concubine falsely when Maria was one of the wives of the Prophet (pbuh).
 
Btw I've seen your kind before. When they first join the a site, they are ever so polite and ask "oh is it ok of I ask this question?" then they say things like "my wife and kids are Muslims" to gain trust, then the 'real' reason comes out why they are here. It is to sow doubt and to defame and to slander.


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 01 November 2012 at 7:04pm
Originally posted by Abu Loren

Well you brought up the subject of concubine falsely when Maria was one of the wives of the Prophet (pbuh).
The scholars didn’t seem to be beating around the bush on this point so I assumed that it was not a contentious matter. However, there are people who clearly disagree so I sincerely regret my ill-advised use of the c-word. It had zero relevance to my original question, as I was careful enough to say in the very next sentence - and in several posts since then.
Btw I've seen your kind before. When they first join the a site, they are ever so polite and ask "oh is it ok of I ask this question?" then they say things like "my wife and kids are Muslims" to gain trust, then the 'real' reason comes out why they are here. It is to sow doubt and to defame and to slander.
If all I wanted was to 'sow doubt and to defame and to slander' then there would be more effective ways than posting bland questions on this site.  Yes, my later questions are more direct, but if you perceive any hostility on my part then I guess we’ll just have to agree to differ on that. What can I do to convince you that I’m not lying? (Without revealing my daughters' identities. Please.)


-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 02 November 2012 at 3:00am
Originally posted by nospam001

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Well you brought up the subject of concubine falsely when Maria was one of the wives of the Prophet (pbuh).The scholars didn’t seem to be beating around the bush on this point so I assumed that it was not a contentious matter. However, there are people who clearly disagree so I sincerely regret my ill-advised use of the c-word. It had zero relevance to my original question, as I was careful enough to say in the very next sentence - and in several posts since then.
Btw I've seen your kind before. When they first join the a site, they are ever so polite and ask "oh is it ok of I ask this question?" then they say things like "my wife and kids are Muslims" to gain trust, then the 'real' reason comes out why they are here. It is to sow doubt and to defame and to slander.
If all I wanted was to 'sow doubt and to defame and to slander' then there would be more effective ways than posting bland questions on this site.  Yes, my later questions are more direct, but if you perceive any hostility on my part then I guess we’ll just have to agree to differ on that. What can I do to convince you that I’m not lying? (Without revealing my daughters' identities. Please.)
 
Which begs the question why would a Muslimah marry a kufr? This is against the commands from the Holy Qur'an.


Posted By: nothing
Date Posted: 02 November 2012 at 11:41am
Originally posted by Abu Loren

Which begs the question why would a Muslimah marry a kufr? This is against the commands from the Holy Qur'an.

Bro, let him be, his being is not important to us. I still don't know where the links of these subjects to start with. I start have a feeling maybe those mufassirin which he said he relied upon were wrongly linked up the verses. The same thing happened with the famous Jalalain, where Salman rushdie got the idea for his "Satanic verses".

Originally posted by nospam001

The scholars didn’t seem to be beating around the bush on this point so I assumed that it was not a contentious matter

Can you please point it to the online tafsir, or if you don't mind can you link the verses clearly with their reasons? Sorry I am still some kind of lost here.




Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 02 November 2012 at 10:08pm
Originally posted by Nothing

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Which begs the question why would a Muslimah marry a kufr? This is against the commands from the Holy Qur'an.
Bro, let him be, his being is not important to us.
My being thanks you for the support. But seriously folks, Abu has raised an interesting question which I am happy to discuss - in an entirely http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24197 - separate thread , of course.
Originally posted by Nothing

Can you please point it to the online tafsir, or if you don't mind can you link the verses clearly with their reasons? Sorry I am still some kind of lost here.
Normally I would. However, in this case, by citing tafsir about Maria I would only be helping to divert attention away from my original question.

You acknowledged earlier that some of the wives were upset, and for an understandable reason. I take it you are not asking me for clarification on those key points.
Originally posted by Nothing

Mary gave him a son by the name Ibrohim. That was the reason he stopped by her house more than agreed, not for sex but to visit his son. But the other wives still did not like it regardless.
It would save time supposing someone could refer back to my short narrative as posted on 23-Oct and point out which specific elements appear to be incorrect. When doing so, please remember to substitute the word 'wife' in place of 'concubine'.

-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 05 November 2012 at 11:53pm
Originally posted by nospam001

It would save time supposing someone could refer back to my short narrative as posted on 23-Oct and point out which specific elements appear to be incorrect. When doing so, please remember to substitute the word 'wife' in place of 'concubine'.
 
I think we already answered your question. If you missed it then here it is again.
 
Narrated 'Aishah:
 It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "The Messenger of Allah did not die until Allah permitted him to marry whatever women he wanted."

Reference : Sunan an-Nasa'i 3205
In-book reference : Book 26, Hadith 10
English translation : Vol. 4, Book 26, Hadith 3207
 
The Prophet (pbuh) was given special privileges by Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala because he was a highly regarded slave of Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala. The Prophet (pbuh) was to fulfil an important mission for mankind, also note that Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala forgave his past and future sins.
 
If the Prophet (pbuh) was showing favouritism towards a wife that is because he was a human being and had all the faults of a human being. If you read his hadiths you will seee that time and again he reminds us that he was just a human being like you and me and prone to mistakes like you and me.
 
Btw I don't know if you know but some of the wives, especially the older ones gave up their rights on visits by the Prophet (pbuh) so that he can spend time with whomever he wanted to. Again read the hadiths to get the full picture.


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 06 November 2012 at 3:09am
Assalamu alaikum.

I have stopped discussing in this thread and others because there is insincerity from some members who want to understand Muhammad and that some Muslims give a distorted explanation. It is to be understood that understanding Muhammad begins with understanding what was revealed before him. It is not the responsibility of the follower of Muhammad to make one believe in him. I, want to be told what made Noah, Abraham, Isaac and others believed in Allah and obeyed His commands. The same signs are in the soul of all of us. They are present today. Allah says that he created all of us as believers. It is our parents that make us believers of otherwise.
It is wrong to portray Muhammad as having committed a sin because no one can ever pin point such sin. The Bible explains that it is the sinless that Allah Trusts and appoints as leaders. That was the reason behind the killing of the first born children and the appointment of the Levi tribes as those to hold the Torah. Prophet Jonah sinned but that was a lesson, likewise Solomon.
Allah refers to Muhammad on issues that are very serious and not that he has committed that offense. It was only during the time of Muhammad that honor, protection and rights were given to women. We should not forget that Surayya the wife of Amr was the first female martyr. The remarks of Amr ibn Al-As to the Negus king: "We use them, buy them sell them and discard them" reveals the position of females before. Allah addressed mankind to be extremely lenient to women. They can easily be broken. The last words of Muhammad was: your women your women.  Secondly the Shari'a like the previous ones was not based on arbitrariness, but on cause and effect. For every action there must be a reaction. For example why did Allah command Moses to throw a twig in the water at Morah?  When the Levi clan finally left Madina in 6 A.H, the Shari'a seized because of the absence of a cause- the Levi clan.
The world is certainly ignorant of the Scriptures. Its knowledge like empirical knowledge is the only way to across and mend our problems. Did those who read the book in website: sbpra.com//allamadrsanisalihmustapha failed to understand the continuity of the Message?  
Everything has been explained. It is better we refer to such explanations rather than explaining the Sharia based on our inexperience, not as witness to its foundation and consolidation, but on our ignorance and bias.
Let us stop joking and insulting the purpose and design of this forum. Let us leave those who want to joke do so without assisting them. Assisting and inclining  them is a sin.

Friendship.




Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 06 November 2012 at 3:18am
Originally posted by Friendship

Assalamu alaikum.

I have stopped discussing in this thread and others because there is insincerity from some members who want to understand Muhammad and that some Muslims give a distorted explanation. It is to be understood that understanding Muhammad begins with understanding what was revealed before him. It is not the responsibility of the follower of Muhammad to make one believe in him. I, want to be told what made Noah, Abraham, Isaac and others believed in Allah and obeyed His commands. The same signs are in the soul of all of us. They are present today. Allah says that he created all of us as believers. It is our parents that make us believers of otherwise.
It is wrong to portray Muhammad as having committed a sin because no one can ever pin point such sin. The Bible explains that it is the sinless that Allah Trusts and appoints as leaders. That was the reason behind the killing of the first born children and the appointment of the Levi tribes as those to hold the Torah. Prophet Jonah sinned but that was a lesson, likewise Solomon.
Allah refers to Muhammad on issues that are very serious and not that he has committed that offense. It was only during the time of Muhammad that honor, protection and rights were given to women. We should not forget that Surayya the wife of Amr was the first female martyr. The remarks of Amr ibn Al-As to the Negus king: "We use them, buy them sell them and discard them" reveals the position of females before. Allah addressed mankind to be extremely lenient to women. They can easily be broken. The last words of Muhammad was: your women your women.  Secondly the Shari'a like the previous ones was not based on arbitrariness, but on cause and effect. For every action there must be a reaction. For example why did Allah command Moses to throw a twig in the water at Morah?  When the Levi clan finally left Madina in 6 A.H, the Shari'a seized because of the absence of a cause- the Levi clan.
The world is certainly ignorant of the Scriptures. Its knowledge like empirical knowledge is the only way to across and mend our problems. Did those who read the book in website: sbpra.com//allamadrsanisalihmustapha failed to understand the continuity of the Message?  
Everything has been explained. It is better we refer to such explanations rather than explaining the Sharia based on our inexperience, not as witness to its foundation and consolidation, but on our ignorance and bias.
Let us stop joking and insulting the purpose and design of this forum. Let us leave those who want to joke do so without assisting them. Assisting and inclining  them is a sin.

Friendship.


 
Wa Alaikkum As'alaam
 
No offence but I can't trust somebody who puts the Prophet (pbuh) above Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala. What I wrote above is in the Hadiths of the Prophet (pbuh). People like you give devine attributes to the Prophet (pbuh) when time and again he said that he was only a human being who made mistakes and YES who possibly sinned. Hence Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala revealed that all of his past and future sins are forgiven. The Prophet (pbuh) was just a man like you and me who ate, drank and slept and had sexual intercourse with his wives. There is nothing to be ashamed of for his actions because Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala accepte all of his actions.


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 06 November 2012 at 5:39am
Assalamu alaikum.

I have no apology to offer to anyone who attempts to interpret the last revelation according to his ideas and fantasy. I had to learn Arabic although my ancestors were of Arab descent from Madina. My difference with other speaking Arabs is that I rely on the interpretation of the Qur'an according to the laid down standard. You believed that Muhammad committed a sin. Note that this is in your register and you have to account for it. I did not say so, and if Allah will ask me that question, I will tell Him that I have no proof from the history of Muhammad. If Allah will accuse Muhammad of sinning I have no objection.

Friendship.



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 07 November 2012 at 12:02am
Originally posted by Friendship

Assalamu alaikum.

I have no apology to offer to anyone who attempts to interpret the last revelation according to his ideas and fantasy. I had to learn Arabic although my ancestors were of Arab descent from Madina. My difference with other speaking Arabs is that I rely on the interpretation of the Qur'an according to the laid down standard. You believed that Muhammad committed a sin. Note that this is in your register and you have to account for it. I did not say so, and if Allah will ask me that question, I will tell Him that I have no proof from the history of Muhammad. If Allah will accuse Muhammad of sinning I have no objection.

Friendship.

 
If the Prophet (pbuh) didn't sin then why was his past and future sins forgiven?
 
Do not try to make the Holy Prophet (pbuh) into another Jesus (pbuh).


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 07 November 2012 at 12:12am
Assalamu alaika.

You are an Arab I guess. The Revelation is in your mother's tongue. All that you need is to read what the Sahabas explained on each and every letter, word and verse time and time again to understand the Revelation. I do not argue with a Muslim because they never give away their opinion and agree with the
Truth. I do not intend to insult you, but only to live by my experience.

Friendship.



Posted By: Usmani
Date Posted: 07 November 2012 at 1:27am

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



-------------
Engage your self in good deeds,otherswise yours nafs will engage you in bad deeds


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 07 November 2012 at 1:46am
All Prophets of God sinned and none of them were withour sin. The Prophet (pbuh) himself warned us against giving him divine attributes like the Christians gave to Jesus (pbuh). The Prophet was a simply a man, a mere human being, nothing more and nothing less. Some people praise him above Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala and give him titles like 'perfect creation' which is not true at all. Nobody is perfect except Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala and millions of Muslims have forgotten this fact.
 
Don't condemn me to hell fire and call me kufr for giving you the facts and telling the truth.


Posted By: Usmani
Date Posted: 07 November 2012 at 10:36am
 
Dear Brother Abu Loren,
 
All the Prophets of God are Special people, they are infallible, God protect them for commenting sins. Whoever praise them above Allah Subhanau wa ta'ala are on mistake and who ever think that they commits sins, they too are on mistake.

 

If the Prophets of God does not commit sins by the special protection of Almighty Himself, this is no way an attribute of Divine.

 

 



-------------
Engage your self in good deeds,otherswise yours nafs will engage you in bad deeds


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 07 November 2012 at 11:19am
Originally posted by Usmani

 
Dear Brother Abu Loren,
 
All the Prophets of God are Special people, they are infallible, God protect them for commenting sins. Whoever praise them above Allah Subhanau wa ta'ala are on mistake and who ever think that they commits sins, they too are on mistake.

 

If the Prophets of God does not commit sins by the special protection of Almighty Himself, this is no way an attribute of Divine.

  

 
All the Prophets of God were indeed special people, but they were just people just like you and me. I'm not saying that they committed sins during their Prophethood but that they all sinned just like you and me.
 
Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) lied to a king to protect his wife Sarah and he lied to his people when they asked him who broke their idols. Prophet Musa (pbuh) killed an Egyptian albeit accidentally.
 
Also all the Prophets will be judged too just like you and me.


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 07 November 2012 at 2:57pm

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Originally posted by nospam001

It would save time supposing someone could refer back to my short narrative as posted on 23-Oct and point out which specific elements appear to be incorrect. When doing so, please remember to substitute the word 'wife' in place of 'concubine'.
I think we already answered your question. If you missed it then here it is again.
 
Narrated 'Aishah:
It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "The Messenger of Allah did not die until Allah permitted him to marry whatever women he wanted."

Reference : Sunan an-Nasa'i 3205
In-book reference : Book 26, Hadith 10
English translation : Vol. 4, Book 26, Hadith 3207

 
The Prophet (pbuh) was given special privileges by Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala because he was a highly regarded slave of Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala. The Prophet (pbuh) was to fulfil an important mission for mankind, also note that Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala forgave his past and future sins.
 
If the Prophet (pbuh) was showing favouritism towards a wife that is because he was a human being and had all the faults of a human being. If you read his hadiths you will seee that time and again he reminds us that he was just a human being like you and me and prone to mistakes like you and me.
 
Btw I don't know if you know but some of the wives, especially the older ones gave up their rights on visits by the Prophet (pbuh) so that he can spend time with whomever he wanted to. Again read the hadiths to get the full picture.


Sorry, but the question you insist on answering is not one that I have ever asked.

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.)

Originally posted by nospam001

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?

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

Originally posted by nospam001

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 [wife], 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 [wife], 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.

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

Originally posted by nospam001

The 'engine' of this thread, to me anyway, is that Sura 66 deals severely with gossiping and eavesdropping, but tacitly approves of the husband's duplicity, secrecy and attempted cover-up i.e. it condones the fact that he acted in secret, contrary to an earlier understanding or promise and then, when found out, tried to stop the truth from spreading. These points are not disputed anywhere, as far as I can tell. 

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.

Originally posted by nospam001


Originally posted by Abu Loren

If you had read and understood the opening verse of Surah 66 then you would have known that the Prophet was given privileges.
Yes, but did those privileges also include the special freedoms to act in secret, contrary to an earlier understanding or promise and (when found out) to stop the truth from spreading? If so then please say where. I can't find it in 33:50.



-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 07 November 2012 at 7:32pm
Originally posted by nospam001

Yes, but did those privileges also include the special freedoms to act in secret, contrary to an earlier understanding or promise and (when found out) to stop the truth from spreading? If so then please say where. I can't find it in 33:50.

First of all you are confused about one or two things here. The wife of the Prophet (pbuh) in question is Zainab and not Maria. He acted in 'secret' because he was allowed to do anything he wanted to because he was the Prophet of God. It's also true that Zainab was one of his favourite wives along with Aisha.
 
Explain to us the contradiction you keep talking about, the earlier understanding or promise. May be the following hadith will set your mind at ease.
 
'Ubaid bin 'Umair narrated from 'Aishah, the wife of the Prophet:
"The Prophet used to stay with Zainab bint Jahsh and drink honey at her house. Hafsah and I agreed that if the Prophet came to either of us, she would say: 'I detect the smell of Maghafir (a nasty-smelling gum) on you; have you eaten Maghafir?' He came to one of them and she said that to him. He said: 'No, rather I drank honey at the house of Zainab bint Jahsh, but I will never do it again.' Then the following was revealed: 'O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you.' 'If you two turn in repentance to Allah, (it will be better for you).' addressing 'Aishah and Hafsah; 'And (remember) when the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives.' refers to him saying: "No, rather I drank honey.""
 
Sunan-an-Nasa'i
English reference : Vol. 4, Book 27, Hadith 3450
Arabic reference : Book 27, Hadith 3434


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 08 November 2012 at 7:59pm


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

Originally posted by Abu Loren

He acted in 'secret' because he was allowed to do anything he wanted to...
Does the Qur'an actually say that, and if so is it in S33:50 or somewhere else?
Originally posted by Abu Loren

Explain to us the contradiction you keep talking about, the earlier understanding or promise.

'Ubaid bin 'Umair narrated from 'Aishah, the wife of the Prophet:
"...He said: 'No, rather I drank honey at the house of Zainab bint Jahsh, but I will never do it again'..."

Sunan-an-Nasa'i
English reference : Vol. 4, Book 27, Hadith 3450
Arabic reference : Book 27, Hadith 3434


Wasn't the husband later observed doing something contrary, in secret before any retraction was uttered to his other wives? How else does one explain their behaviour, upon hearing about the secret?

 Clearly their reaction, whatever it was, was wrong enough to deserve a severe rebuke from Allah() Himself.  Would a devoted wife ever do such things supposing she had been fully informed, in advance?
 
(Let us suppose, for now, that the quotation above is the most reliable of all hadiths relating to this sura; i.e., 'something contrary' simply means 'drinking honey at a particular place'.)


-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 09 November 2012 at 1:23am
Originally posted by nospam001


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

Originally posted by Abu Loren

He acted in 'secret' because he was allowed to do anything he wanted to...
Does the Qur'an actually say that, and if so is it in S33:50 or somewhere else?
Originally posted by Abu Loren

Explain to us the contradiction you keep talking about, the earlier understanding or promise.

'Ubaid bin 'Umair narrated from 'Aishah, the wife of the Prophet:
"...He said: 'No, rather I drank honey at the house of Zainab bint Jahsh, but I will never do it again'..."

Sunan-an-Nasa'i
English reference : Vol. 4, Book 27, Hadith 3450
Arabic reference : Book 27, Hadith 3434

Wasn't the husband later observed doing something contrary, in secret before any retraction was uttered to his other wives? How else does one explain their behaviour, upon hearing about the secret?
 Clearly their reaction, whatever it was, was wrong enough to deserve a severe rebuke from Allah() Himself.  Would a devoted wife ever do such things supposing she had been fully informed, in advance?
 
(Let us suppose, for now, that the quotation above is the most reliable of all hadiths relating to this sura; i.e., 'something contrary' simply means 'drinking honey at a particular place'.)
 
Why don't you stop beating around the bush and ask clear and concise questions so we can answer them in the same way?
 
Are you saying that the Prophet (pbuh) went back to drinking honey with his wife Zainab after he said he would not?


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 09 November 2012 at 1:37pm
Originally posted by Abu Loren

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and ask clear and concise questions so we can answer them in the same way?
Abstract concepts are hard to avoid in matters of principle. Allowing for that, I think my questions are already pretty clear and concise. If you could take the time to highlight which bits are still ambiguous or confusing I will try restating them.

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Are you saying that the Prophet (pbuh) went back to drinking honey with his wife Zainab after he said he would not?

Yes. Assuming we stick to the 'honey pot' scenario, of course. [No pun intended.]

Furthermore, he did not try to retract/clarify the 'promise' or explain his actions. Not until after his other wives had already found out for themselves - and reacted accordingly.

I am not so concerned with his behaviour (he was human after all), rather with how the Qur'an 'turns a blind eye' to those actions, which at face value seem far from exemplary.

Obviously, being a non-Muslim, I have been applying the same ethical standards as I would for any husband, including my own future sons-in-law.

It has been stated several times in this thread that the Prophet() enjoyed absolute moral freedom, but so far this has not been backed up with any verse or other authority. On closer inspection S33:50 only appears to grant certain conjugal privileges.

-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 11 November 2012 at 1:55am
Originally posted by nospam001


Yes. Assuming we stick to the 'honey pot' scenario, of course. [No pun intended.]
Provide your proof that the Prophet (pbuh) went back to Zainab secretly drinking honey.




Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 11 November 2012 at 1:52pm

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Provide your proof that the Prophet (pbuh) went back to Zainab secretly drinking honey.

What forms of evidence would you accept?

Supposing a hadith can count as 'proof', then which specific collections would you say are 'sufficiently reliable'?



-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.



Print Page | Close Window