Islamic tradition links the revelation of Quran 66:1 (“O Prophet! Why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful to you?”) to a personal incident in Prophet Muhammad’s life. However, the sources offer conflicting and trivial explanations, raising doubts about their reliability and the divine nature of the verse.
The Slave Girl Narrative
One narration comes from Sunan an-Nasa’i 3959:
“It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but ‘Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed (Quran 66:1): ‘O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you.’ until the end of the Verse.”
This suggests the Prophet forbade himself from his slave girl, Mariyah, due to his wives’ jealousy, and Allah intervened to correct him.
A similar story appears in Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi for Quran 66:1:
“The Messenger of Allah … entered the house of Hafsah along with … Mariyah. When Hafsah found him with her [in an intimate moment], she said: ‘Why did you bring her in my house?’ … He said to her: ‘Do not mention this to ‘A’ishah; she is forbidden for me [i.e. Mariyah] if I ever touch her’. … But she went ahead and informed ‘A’ishah. The Prophet … decided not to go to his wives for a month … when Allah … revealed (O Prophet! Why bannest thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives?)”
This reinforces the domestic dispute over Mariyah as the trigger for the revelation.
The Honey Narrative
Contrastingly, Sahih al-Bukhari 5267 gives a different reason:
“The Prophet (ﷺ) used to stay for a long while with Zanab bint Jahsh and drink honey at her house. So Hafsa and I decided that if the Prophet (ﷺ) came to anyone of us, she should say him, ‘I detect the smell of Maghafir (a nasty smelling gum) in you. Have you eaten Maghafir?’ … The Prophet (ﷺ) said, ‘Never mind, I have taken some honey at the house of Zainab bint Jahsh, but I shall never drink of it anymore.’ So there was revealed: ‘O Prophet! Why do you ban (for you) that which Allah has made lawful for you …’ (66.1-4)”
Here, the Prophet bans honey after his wives trick him into thinking it makes him smell bad—nothing to do with Mariyah.
A Glaring Contradiction
These two “sahih” (authentic) accounts—one about a slave girl, the other about honey—cannot both be true. How can a single divine verse have two entirely different origins? This contradiction undermines the reliability of these narrations and the claim that they reflect divine intent.
Triviality Exposed by the Lizard Ahadith
The triviality of these incidents becomes even clearer when compared to the Prophet’s refusal to eat lizard meat. In Sahih Muslim 1946a:
“‘Abdullah b. ‘Abbas reported that Khalid b. Walid … found with [Maimuna] a roasted lizard … While Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) was about to stretch forth his hand towards the lizard, a woman … said: Messenger of Allah, it is a lizard. Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) withdrew his hand, whereupon Khalid b. Walid said: Messenger of Allah, is a lizard forbidden? Thereupon he said: No, but it is not found in the land of my people, and I feel that I have no liking for it. Khalid said: I then chewed and ate it, and Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) was looking at me and he did not forbid (me to eat it).”
And in Sahih Muslim 1944a:
“Ibn ‘Umar reported … There was brought to them the flesh of the lizard when a lady amongst the wives of Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) said: It is the flesh of the lizard. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: Eat, for it is lawful, but it is not my diet.”
The Prophet refused lizard meat—a lawful food—due to personal dislike, yet no revelation came to rebuke him. If refusing lizard meat didn’t warrant divine intervention, why would banning honey or a slave girl? This inconsistency exposes the absurdity of claiming these trivial acts necessitated a Quranic verse.
Ethical Problems with Mariyah
The Mariyah narrative also raises ethical concerns. The Prophet having sex with a slave girl, then being divinely rebuked for stopping, implies Allah’s revelation served to settle a domestic squabble. This clashes with modern standards of consent and dignity, and it cheapens the idea of divine scripture.
Conclusion
The conflicting stories—one about a slave, another about honey—and their trivial nature, especially when contrasted with the lizard ahadith, reveal the shaky foundations of these traditions. The ethical issues surrounding Mariyah only deepen the skepticism. Far from divine wisdom, Quran 66:1’s backstory looks like a human invention tailored to personal circumstances.