Contracts & technical loopholes - what is

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.

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.

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)

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?