Surah At-Tahrim (Banning or Prohibition)

[N. Truth Seeker]

BismAllah ..

As-salam Alaykom.
I understand the basic message of "Banning" that we must not prohibit anything as Haram and forbid it which Allah has not disallowed us .. a mistake which the Hadith Hadith always makes e.g. Hadith banning of gold and silk for men and perfume for women. 

Would anyone have an idea of the actual incident which "Banning" in this Surah refers to?  It might be difficult for anyone to know the details except Allah, but I just want to get an idea of the event that people think might possibly might have taken place.  I'm trying to study the aspect of banning as elucidated in Surah 66 thoroughly because we're having our fortnightly discussions (it's now turned fortnightly from weekly) on this topic the following weekend, InshAllah. 

Your opinion would be very helpful.   JazekAllah khair. 

[Heba E. Husseyn]

Walaikum Salam brother.  Good question.  I promise I'll take it up this evening, InshAllah, with an excellent feedback by quoting Pickthall's entire commentary on banning regarding Surah 66.  I'm in a rush now cause I gotta go for some shopping.  Allah willing, you'll find it very helpful and it will prepare you very well for your upcoming discussion.

[N. Truth Seeker]

Okay, thanks a lot sister.  Will be looking forward to reading & printing it InshAllah.

[Zainab_M]

Aw!  that sounds like it would be a great post. I too am waiting to read it.

[Heba E. Husseyn]

As-Salaam Alaikum brother Pt.  Sorry for the delay.  Was pretty swamped with all the household chores.

The reference in Surah At-Tahrim is definitely to some incident in the Prophet's life involving the Prophet and perhaps two of his wives.  The evidence of this can be found in the following verses of this Surah, verses 1 to 4.

"O Prophet! Why bannest thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives ? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.  66:1

Allah hath made lawful for you (Muslims) absolution from your oaths (of such a kind), and Allah is your Protector. He is the Knower, the Wise.  66:2

When the Prophet confided a fact unto one of his wives and when she afterward divulged it and Allah apprised him thereof, he made known (to her) part thereof and passed over part. And when he told it her she said: Who hath told thee ? He said: The Knower, the Aware hath told me.   66:3

If ye twain turn unto Allah repentant, (ye have cause to do so) for your hearts desired (the ban); and if ye aid one another against him (Muhammad) then lo! Allah, even He, is his Protecting Friend, and Gabriel and the righteous among the believers; and furthermore the angels are his helpers."   66:4

To confirm the exact details of this happening would be hard.  That is known to Allah alone.  But obviously it was some simple personal issue between the Prophet (pbuh) and his wives.  However, it becomes very significant because Allah Almighty clarifies in this Surah in the above verses not to ban or prohibit anything which He has not prohibited us.  

The following story is considered to be the most probable event this Surah refers to in verses 1 to 4.  But like I said, only Allah knows the exact truth.  Pickthall writes the commentary in the introduction of this Surah very well, which I quote:

QUOTE:
The Prophet was said to be very fond of honey.  One of the Prophet's wives received a gift of honey from one of her relatives and by its means inveigled the Prophet into staying with her longer than was customary.  The others felt aggrieved and Aisha devised a little plot.  Knowing the Prophet's horror of unpleasant smells, she arranged with two other wives that they should hold their  noses when he would come to visit them after eating the honey and accuse him of having eaten the produce of Maghafir, a rank smelling tree.  When the Prophet replied he had eaten only honey, the wives said that the bees had fed on Maghafir.  The Prophet was dismayed and vowed to eat no more honey.

There are a couple of other similar traditional stories as well but this one is most widely accepted.  All allude to a tendency on the part of some of the Prophet's wives to presume on their new status and the Prophet's well-known kindness - a tendency so marked that if allowed to continue might have been a bad example to the community.

The Quran first rebukes the Prophet for yielding to their desires to the extent of undertaking to forgo a thing which Allah had made lawful for him and then reproves the wives for their double-dealing and intrigue.  

This has given the excuse to some non-Muslim writers to become critical which is completely irrelevant because their ideology is altogether un-Islamic.  The Prophet has never been regarded by Muslims as anything other than a human messenger of God.  Sanctity has never been identified with celibacy. For Christiandom the strictest religious ideal has been celibacy, monogamy a concession to human nature.  For Muslims, monogamy is the ideal, polygamy the concession to human nature.  Polygamy is of the nature of some men in all countries and of all men in some countries.  Having set a great example of monogamic marriage, the Prophet was to set a great example of polygamic marriage by following which men of that temperament could live righteous lives.  It's important to highlight that with the exception of Aisha, all his other wives were either widows or divorcees who social conditions were difficult in one way or another.  He encountered all the difficulties inherent in the situation, and when he made mistakes the Quran helped him to retrieve them.  

Al-Islam did not introduce polygamy.  It restricted an existing institution by limiting the number of a man's legal wives, by giving every woman a legal personality and legal rights which had to be respected, and making every man legally responsible for his conduct towards every woman.  Whether monogamy or polygamy should prevail in a particular country or period is a matter of social or economic convenience.
UNQUOTE:

[Zainab_M]

That's a very interesting one.  I''m sure I too have this sis.  I guess you are also using Pickthall's old publication of translations.  That contains some wonderful commentaries with introductions and even as footnotes.  You are right, the precise details of the event are known to Allah alone but by referring to those 4 verses we can confirm that peoples' self inventions that become "Islamic laws" are so wrong.

Thanks a lot.

 

[Ruhi_Rose]

Very interesting one.  I have this commentary too, in my copy.  Okay, so now, going exactly as per the Quranic verses 4 to 6 of Surah 66, how much of this traditional story can one rely upon as being consistent with the Quranic contents? 

[Heba E. Husseyn]

QUOTE:
The Prophet was said to be very fond of honey.  One of the Prophet's wives received a gift of honey from one of her relatives and by its means inveigled the Prophet into staying with her longer than was customary.  The others felt aggrieved and Aisha devised a little plot.  Knowing the Prophet's horror of unpleasant smells, she arranged with two other wives that they should hold their  noses when he would come to visit them after eating the honey and accuse him of having eaten the produce of Maghafir, a rank smelling tree.  When the Prophet replied he had eaten only honey, the wives said that the bees had fed on Maghafir.  The Prophet was dismayed and vowed to eat no more honey.
UNQUOTE:

@ sister Rose, salaams.  As I already mentioned, this is a mere traditional story amongst one of the few which the traditionalists most readily accept.  The factual details of the event would only be known to Allah alone.  The purpose of Pickthall's quoting this story was only for the purpose of showing what's going on within the minds of writers.  Also, Pickthall was under pressure from certain quarters that he was too dismissive of the Hadith.  But this didn't influence Pickthall to manipulate his translations.  Instead he only quoted some traditional views by stating their traditional sourcs in connection with some Surahs in a few of his introductions.  He left it up to the readers to conclude what they liked regarding the details of these traditional stories.  A Quran alone reader wouldn't be bothered with such stories.

The reason I quoted the story is to compare it with the Quranic contents and reject whatever of it doesn't tally with the Quran.  Secondly, my main objective was to show Pickthall's views on Islam in connection with certain family laws as he has so well stated, starting from the third paragraph as quoted above. 

If read carefully, the traditional story doesn't confirm much of the Quranic contents.  It's the same problem concerning a couple of other traditional stories in connection to this episode.  E.g. The Quran doesn't mention what the Prophet (pbuh) decided to ban upon himself, the Quran doesn't mention what "fact" it was which the Prophet (pbuh) confided in one of his wives, and unlike the traditional stories the Quran also does not confirm by name which wives were involved in this episode. If you read another traditional story on this topic, it mentions the names of Marya, Hafsa and Aisha connected with this event.  But the Quran mentions none of their names.

What the Quran confirms are:

Whatever the Prophet banned for himself, was under some kind of pressure from his wives and to please them.  The above verses also confirm that we must not vow to abstain from something which Allah has not commanded us to quit.  The verses also confirm that Allah had already made the Prophet aware beforehand either about the scheme of his wives or their displeasure with him.  And Allah has also made it clear that He does not like such intrigues carried out by the Prophet's wives. 

Thus, the important lessons for us to learn are:
- Not to stamp something as Haram when Allah has not called it Haram.
- Not to harass each other with intrigues and gossips.
- Anyone who indulges in such scheming and gossiping must repent and quit such behavior.

Other than the above points, whatever might have been the actual details of the incident are irrelevant for the readers, and perhaps to protect privacy of the Prophet and his wives, the Quran did not give the personal details.  Unlike the Quran, the Hadith and the altered Bibles don't give a damn about protecting peoples' privacy so they mention personal details about lots of personalities, 99% of which are false. 

[Ruhi_Rose]

Thanks sis.  Got it perfectly well now.  Pickthall's write-up on the subjects of monogamy and polygamy is very enlightening, very well written indeed.  I just needed some more clarification concerning that traditional story because I too observed that it doesn't wholly conform with the Quranic verses on this topic.  Thanks again for detailing all the points so articulately. 

[Heba E. Husseyn]

u r very welcomed sis.

[N. Truth Seeker]

Many, many thanks for this excellent information sister Heba.  I read it carefully more than once and found it very useful.  I've also printed it.  Our weekly discussions were postponed and will InshAllah take place the following Friday.