More importantly, Umar doesn't know how his position helps soundly refute and expose his own colleagues and fellow writers. Maybe Umar can now convince Osama Abdallah that Sura 33:52 has been abrogated and should therefore refrain from using it to disprove the practice of Muta:
Also in regards to Muta in Islam, Allah almighty clearly forbid it in the noble Quran. Let us look at noble verse chapter 33 verse 52. There are a few important points to notice in this noble verse. First, Allah almighty ordered prophet Muhammad to make marriage permanent. When he told him "it is not lawful for thee to marry women after this, nor to change them for other wives", this clearly makes marriage a permanent marriage. Also, temporary marriage or marriage that is destined for divorce intentionally is not permitted. Also, irresponsible divorce is not allowed in the noble verse. Notice when Allah almighty told the prophet "nor to change them for other wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess", which is the slave girls that he owned. Basically God almighty is telling the prophet, or allowing him, that he can have sex with his right hand possessions. But as far as free women he is not allowed to divorce his current wives for unjust reasons, and he is not allowed to marry women after this. So the bottom line of marriage in Islam, the way God almighty sees it and prefers it, is that marriage is not to be destined for divorce unless there are good reasons, justified reasons. And temporary marriage violates the spirit and the sacredness of marriage in Islam because it is a marriage that is destined for divorce, intentionally destined for divorce. So whether a man allures a woman and marries her, he lies to her and he marries her by telling her that, you know, this is going to be a permanent marriage, and then divorces her a day or a week after that, or whether the couple agreed to marry for, say, an hour or a day and then divorce, all of this is strictly forbidden according to God almighty, and the way God almighty sees marriage and wants marriage in noble verse 33:52. People can play games but they cannot play games on God almighty. That's the moral and the bottom line of noble verse 33:52. (audio source)
In his recent "response" to me (here), Osama writes no less than four times:
"It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them [divorce them that is] for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee,except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and God doth watch over all things. (The Noble Quran, 33:52)"
"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then ONLY ONE, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. (The Noble Quran, 4:3)"
There are few points to notice in these two Noble Verses:
1- Allah Almighty did not leave any room for Muslim men and women to marry and divorce as they pleases, because marriages that are destined for divorce are clearly and strictly forbidden according to Noble Verse 33:52. "It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them [divorce them that is] for (other wives)...." clearly proves this.
2- Irresponsible divorce is not allowed.
3- Also for those men that are already married, they are highly encouraged to only marry ONE WIFE, in Noble Verse 4:3.
4- Temporary marriage by an already married person is an unfair and unjust marriage, because:
· The man would be playing favoritism between the wives.
· He would be exploiting the temporary wives while keeping the permanent ones.
· Him marrying and divorcing some women while permanently keeping others is clear favoritism and injustice between the wives.
5- In the light of all of the points above, we can clearly see that Noble Verses 33:53 [sic] and 4:3 clearly prohibit men from exploiting their lust and desire toward women.
Whatever you just said was refuted, in Part 1where I showed 2 cases,
1) Sura 33:52 was "abrogated"
2) Sura 33:52 WASN'T abrogated
Reason why I divided it into 2 sections, was so that people can see both side of the story, and quite honestly, the second part made more sense. It was proven that Sura 33:52 wasnt abrogated, and Muhammad (S) didn't go "against" the Quran.
Who knows, maybe he can also help Bassam Zawadi see his gross error of trying to use Sura 33:52 to refute Craig Winn:
Craig Winn said:
56: Qur'an 33:51 "You may have whomever you desire; there is no blame."
It truly is unbelievable how Craig Winn misquotes to deceive people. He is quoting this verse so out of context in order to show that Allah said it is okay for Prophet Muhammad to have any woman that he pleases.
The Quranic verse when read with understanding and context is that Allah (swt) is telling Muhammad (pbuh) that he can choose to marry or divorce whomever he pleases from his wives. However read the next verse and see what it says
It is not allowed thee to take (other) women henceforth, nor that thou shouldst change them for other wives even though their beauty pleased thee, save those whom thy right hand possesseth. And Allah is ever Watcher over all things.
SO THE REASON WHY THE PROPHET WAS ALLOWED TO PICK AND CHOOSE BETWEEN HIS CURRENT WIVES IN VERSE 51 IS BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO END UP WITH THEM UNTIL THE DAY HE DIES (A RESTRICTION ALLAH PUT ON HIM IN VERSE 52) BUT US MUSLIMS ARE ALLOWED TO DIVORCE AND GET REMARRIED AS WE ARE PLEASED (only if it truly calls for it).
(Zawadi, The Deception of Craig Winn Revealed; source)
So we have Umar refuting two of his colleagues that write for the same Muslim website.
In light of this, we need to ask which position does the writers of Answering Christianity want their readers to embrace? Should they agree with Osama and Zawadi that Sura 33:52 has not been abrogated, thus refuting Umar? Or should they embrace Umar's position that the verse has been abrogated, thus refuting Osama and Zawadi and vindicating both Winn and myself?
We will let the three of them decide.
This was already dealt with above.
But this isn't the only time where Umar contradicts his colleagues, specifically Osama. In fact in this example both Zawadi and Umar are at odds with Osama. Osama in several articles provides the names of Muhammad's wives:
The Holy ProphetB.A.P.U.H took eleven women into matrimonial bondage at different times in different places under different circumstances. A brief account of his marriages and its background is presented here. Some of these details will be a repetition but it could not be avoided.
Here are the names of the eleven wives as they appear in the article:
Saudha bint Zumha.
Ayesha bint Abu Bakr.
Hafsah bint Umar.
Zainab bin Khizeemah.
Ume-Salma bint Abi Umayyah.
Zainab bint Hajush.
Javairia bint Haris.
Ume-Habibah bint Abu Sufyan.
Safia bint Haye.
Maimoona bint Haris.
What is notably missing from this list (at least until 27 January 2006, the time of publication of this article), as well as the one listed in the first link, is the mention of Mariyah the Copt, which presupposes that Osama doesn't believe that she was a wife of Muhammad. After all, why would Osama cite links and references mentioning all of Muhammad's wives by name, and yet do not list Mariyah as being one of them, if he didn't agree with these sources?
First of all, the first link given by Shamoun, isnt Brother Osama's own article, infact he made it pretty clear that the information was from http://www.usf.edu.pk/wives.html.
The second link given by Shamoun is also not Brother Osama's own article, Brother Osama also made it clear that the information was from another website, specifically http://www.usf.edu.pk/wyw-42.html.
Now, the last paragraph in Shamoun's article makes me want to remind him again, that there are people who believe Mariyah the Copt wasn't the Prophet (S) wife, for more information see the question answered by Shaykh Abdurrahman ibn Yusuf Mangera:
" About Mariya Qibtiyya
Answered by Shaykh Abdurrahman ibn Yusuf Mangera
Could you please tell me a little about Umm Ibrahim Mariya? Was she a Muslim at the time of being given to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)? If no, when did she become a Muslim? She is buried in Al-Baqi. Is she buried close to her blessed son?
In the name of Allah, the Inspirer of truth,
There seems to be some difference of opinion regarding whether she remained a slave or was she taken as a wife. Both opinions are to be found among the scholars and biographers.
In the year 6 AH, after the treaty of Hudaibiya, the Messenger of Allah (upon him be peace) sent letters to the various rulers and governors around the world. The Roman governor of Alexandria, Muqawqas, sent two slave girls to the Messenger of Allah (upon him be peace) as a gift with Hatim ibn Abi Balta'a who was the courier of the Messenger (upon him be peace). The two slave girls were Mariya and Shirin Qibtiyya. On the way to Madina, both embraced Islam at the preaching of Hatim (may Allah be please with him). Shirin Qibtiyya was given to Hassan ibn Thabit and the Messenger of Allah (upon him be peace) kept Mariya Qibtiyya and married her (according to one opinion) or kept her as a slave girl (according to the other opinion).
She passed away during the time of ?Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) in 16AH. ?Umar performed her funeral prayer and she was buried in the Baqi'. Verification was not found as to whether she was buried next to her son or elsewhere (Haqqani Mian Qadri, Azwaj al-Nabiyy sallalllahu 'alayhi wasallam, Muhammad Salman Mansurpuri, Rahmatan li 'l-'alamin).
Her name in Arabic is spelt γΗΡνΙ, both Mariya and Mariyah are correct transliterations.
(NOTE: According to Maududi, this Sura was revealed in A.H. 5, but according to Yusuf Ali , some ayats in this Sura, mainly Ayat 52 was revealed in A.H. 7, which is the year Mariyah was presented to the Holy Prophet:
"This was revealed in A.H. 7. After that the Prophet did not marry again except the handmaiden Mary the Copt, who was sent as a present by the Christian Muqauqas of Egypt. She became the mother of Ibrahim, who died in his infancy.
(Source: The Quran: Text translation and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Footnote#3754)
First, by referring to Ali's dating to challenge Maududi's chronology Umar has again managed to show just how confused and contradictory Islamic scholarship really is over issues such as the precise dating of the Quran.
Second, we highlight the quote from Ali to show Umar what he obviously failed to see:
"This was revealed in A.H. 7. AFTER THAT the Prophet did not marry again EXCEPT THE HANDMAIDEN Mary the Copt, who was sent as a present by the Christian Muqauqas of Egypt. She became the mother of Ibrahim, who died in his infancy.
Ali clearly says that Muhammad married Mariyah AFTER THE COMMAND HAD BEEN GIVEN WHICH PROHIBITED HIM FROM TAKING ANY MORE WIVES! Thus, Ali's quote ends up proving my point and exposes Muhammad as a sinner who willfully broke the commands of his Lord. Umar may have no problem with his prophet being a willful lawbreaker, deliberately going against the instructions of his own god, in light of the fact that on several occasions Muhammad was rebuked severely for sinning:
God pardon thee! Why gavest thou them leave, till it was clear to thee which of them spoke the truth, and thou knewest the liars? S. Arberry
So be thou patient; surely God's promise is true. And ask forgiveness for thy sin, and proclaim the praise of thy Lord at evening and dawn. S. 40:55 Arberry
Know thou therefore that there is no god but God, and ask forgiveness for thy sin, and for the believers, men and women. God knows your going to and fro, and your lodging. S. 47:19 Arberry
Surely We have given thee a manifest victory, that God may forgive thee thy former and thy latter sins, and complete His blessing upon thee, and guide thee on a straight path, S. 48:1-2 Arberry
He frowned and turned away that the blind man came to him. And what should teach thee? Perchance he would cleanse him, or yet remember, and the Reminder profit him. But the self-sufficient, to him thou attendest though it is not thy concern, if he does not cleanse himself. And he who comes to thee eagerly and fearfully, to him thou payest no heed. S. 80:1-10
Since Sam's favourite word today is "confused" , I will show him what "confusion" is:
The Bible says Solomon was a pagan!
3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech [a] the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.
(1 Kings 11:3-6)
While the Quran says Solomon was excellent in God's service!
[038:030] To David We gave Solomon (for a son),- How excellent in Our service! Ever did he turn (to Us)!
Even Yusuf Ali acknowledged 1 Kings 11:3-6:
" The greatest in this life have yet need of this spiritual blessing: without it all worldly good is futile. Referring back to the story of David, we are now introduced to Solomon, who was a great king but greater still because he served God and turned to Him. The Quran, unlike the Old Testament, represents Solomon as a righteous king, not as an idolater, doing "evil in the sight of the Lord" (1 Kings xi,6)
(Source: The Qur'an : Text. Translation, and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, footnote # 4182)
So I am confused Mr. Shamoun, why does the Bible slander Prophet Sulaiman (A), saying he did evil in the eyes of the LORD?
As for Yusuf Ali's commentary, and him saying " AFTER THAT, EXCEPT ETC.", we have alread dealt with that in Part 1 of this rebuttal, we showed that Mariyah came before A.H. 7, therefore its either we have misunderstoof Yusuf Ali, or he is just wrong.
Muhammad Asad, although placing the date of this passage at roughly 7 A.H., agrees that this reference prohibited Muhammad from taking any more wives and was not abrogated:
Some commentators (e.g., Tabari) assume that this restriction relates to the four categories of women enumerated in verse 50 above: it is, however, much more probable that it is a prohibition barring the Prophet from marrying any woman in addition to those to whom he was already married (Baghawi, Zamakhshari). Some of the earliest, most outstanding authorities on the Quran, like Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Ad-Dahhak, Qatadah, Ibn Zayd (all of them cited by Ibn Kathir), or Al-Hasan al-Basri (quoted by Tabari in his commentary on verses 28-29), link this prohibition of further marriages with the choice between the charms of worldly life and the good of the hereafter with which the wives of the Prophet were confronted on the strength of verses 28-29, and their emphatic option for "God and His Apostle" (cf. note on verse 29 above). All those early authorities describe the revelation of verse 52 and the assurance which it was meant to convey to the wives of the Prophet - as God's reward, in this world, of their faith and fidelity. Since it is inconceivable that the Prophet could have disregarded the categorical injunction, "No [other] women shall henceforth be lawful to thee", the passage in question cannot have been revealed earlier than the year 7 H., that is, the year in which the conquest of Khaybar and the Prophet's marriage with Safiyyah - his last marriage - took place. Consequently, verses 28-29 (with which, as we have seen, verse 52 is closely connected) must have been revealed at that later period, and not, as some commentators think, in the year 5 H. (i.e., at the time of the Prophet's marriage with Zaynab). (Online edition; bold and underline emphasis ours)
Thus, if Ali is correct (and Umar obviously believes he is since he quoted him with approval) then Muhammad violated the express orders of his lord to not take any more wives. The only way for Umar to avoid admitting Muhammad was a willful sinner is by coming to the conclusion that Mariyah was not his wife, but his slave.
I am glad that Sam Shamoun posted Muhammad Asad's commentary, since Muhammad Asad himself says the Ayat was revealed in 7 A.H. And once again, as shown in Part 1, Mariyah arrived before this Ayat was revealed, so Prophet Muhammad (S) didn't violate anything.
He now turns his attention to my comments on Ali Sina being mistaken:
Now here is the most hilarious part of this article:
"Mr. Sina stands vindicated at least in regards to her status as a maid, even though he mistakenly assumed that she was Hafsah's maid"
Did he mistakenly do it, or intentionally?? So as you can see, Sam agrees Ali is "mistaken" or how I like to put it, a liar.
What is most hilarious is the author's confusion and inability to understand the point being made. Notice what I said at the top:
Is Sina really lying? Could it be that Sina WAS PERHAPS MISTAKEN? Maybe he read a source that erroneously claimed that Mariyah was Hafsa's maid and failed to verify it? This doesn't excuse Sina but only shows that he is fallible like the rest of us, and much like these Muslims as we shall see.
As I stated Sina may have quoted a source which was mistaken even though Sina didn't know any better. To be mistaken doesn't make one a liar. A person can write something intentionally, believing it to be true, and yet it turns out that the individual was wrong. So it isn't either/or scenario, either Sina wrote it intentionally or he was mistaken. It can be a both/and situation, that Sina intentionally wrote this statement because he believed it was correct and yet it turns out he was mistaken.
Now, let me give you a reason, as to why Sina is a liar. Now, as made clear, there are sources which say Mariyah was a slave, and others which say she was Prophet Muhammad (S) wife, YET,,,,, YET,, I dont know of any Sheikh, Historian, Allama, etc. which says that Mariyah was Hafsa's maid. If Ali Sina, made this claim to anyone, particularly to a knowledgable Muslim, they would laugh at him in the face, that is why noone cares about his website. So yes, in this case, Sina was "mistaken", in the sense that he lied, to put more "juice" in his story, of Hafsa (R) running into Prophet (S) having private time with "Hafsah's maid" (As Ali Sina blindly states). And this story itself is ALSO refuted, read below:
" The Author discusses the report about Mariyah Qibtiyah mainly on the basis of weak reports. As to circumstantial evidence, he only points out that it is unthinkable in the case of a character so superbly moral and modest as of the Prophet. But it may also be pointed out that the holy wives are said to begin their protest against Mariyah some two years after her coming over to the Prophet, which makes the whole story extremely doubtful. Again that Mariyah has been living as a slave-girl, is higly improbably as was residing away from the Mosque on the outskirts of the city and could not 'therefore, render any domestic service to the Prophet or any of the other wives. The situation of her residence also rules out the probability of Hafsa breaking into her privacy. Moreover, the 'Allamah has already proved that Mariyah Qibtiyah was not a slave-girl, but a duly wedded wife of the Prophet and that she came of a respectable family of the Egyptians. To call her a slave-girl is in itself a distortion of facts- Translator"
(Source: Sirat Un Nabi, Vol.II, p.233-234, Footnote#2)
Umar then mentions the following alleged comments of the Muqawqis on his sending Mary and her sister to Muhammad as gifts:
In response to Maududi, here is proof, which shows Mariyah wasn't just a slave:
" To Muhammad Ibn 'Abdullah from Muqaudis, the chief of Qibt. Peace to you. I have read your letter and have noted the contents. I knew this much that a prophet was to come. But I had expected him to appear in Syria. I have extended an honourable welcome to your messenger and am sending two girls who are higly[sic] respected among the Qibtis (Egyptians) and I offer as a present some cloth and a mule to ride on."
(Sirat Un Nabi, p.153 Vol.II)
This was the reply to the Prophet's letter given by Muqauqis, BUT what I want you to note is where he says "two girls who are higly[sic] respected among the Qibtis". Here the author of this wonderful book, comments:
" We have translated the word "Jariyah" in the original sense meaning girl. In Arabic it may be used for a slave girl as well. Historians have on this account declarled[sic] Mariya to have been a slave girl. But the words used by the Potiphar about these girls are ' Who are higly respected among the Qibtis or Egyptians". These are not the words that may possibly be applied to slave girls."
So as I said, I will post the sources which agree she was the Prophet[sic] (S) wife, and most likely she was. So Sam Shamoun when you laugh at Bahagia, and me and Brother Bassam Zawadi, just note that the joke is on you!
It has been obvious (at least to us) throughout this rebuttal that Umar doesn't realize how his gross misunderstanding and misapplication of his own sources once again expose the chaos and confusion that exists among Muslim scholars and Islamic sources. To quote a source that challenges Maududi doesn't prove that the latter was wrong, but only proves that Muslims are a confused bunch!
Moreover, Umar wants to infer from the above that Mariyah wasn't a slave due to the exalted language used to describe her and her sister. In so doing, he only exposes his low view and disdain of slaves since his comments presuppose that there is nothing highly respectable about being a slave! This slip by Umar implies that Mariyah could not be highly respected if she were a slave, which presupposes that slaves are low in class and dignity! Why can't one be a highly regarded slave, a slave known for his or her outstanding qualities and piety, as for example Muhammad's adopted son Zaid ibn Haritha who use to be Khadijah's slave that showed outstanding virtue and devotion to Muhammad? In fact, it was because of his devotion to Muhammad that the latter adopted him as a son.
More importantly, this means that all the Muslim scholars and sources which we cited obviously missed the boat since they didn't see, or were too ignorant to realize, that the Muqawqis' words clearly refute their position that Mariyah was Muhammad's slave! For instance, Maududi who knew of the Muqawqis sending Mariyah and her sister to Muhammad as a token of his fidelity must have failed to grasp the significance of such a gesture since he emphatically denied that Muhammad ever married her:
(1) The woman who came into his possession from among the slave-girls granted by Allah. According to this the Holy Prophet selected for himself Hadrat Raihanah from among the prisoners of war taken at the raid against the Banu Quraizah. Hadrat Juwairiyyah from among the prisoners of war taken at the raid against the Bani al-Mustaliq, Hadrat Safiyyah out of the prisoners captured at Khaiber, and Hadrat Mariah the Copt who was presented by Maqauqis of Egypt. Out of these he set three of them free and married them, but had conjugal relations with Mariah on the ground of her being his slave-girl. In her case THERE IS NO PROOF that the Holy Prophet set her free and married her. (Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur'an, English rendered by the Late Ch. Muhammad Akbar, edited by A.A. Kamal, M.A. [Islamic Publications (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore Pakistan, 4th edition, August 2003], Volume IV, fn. 88, p. 124; bold and capital emphasis ours)
In other words, we are essentially trying to show by all this that there is absolutely nothing conclusive in the words cited by Umar's source to disprove that Mariyah was a slave, apart from Umar's gross misunderstanding of Muqawqis' statements which leads him to think that there is.
All this basically demonstrates is that Umar is picking at straws at this point and is desperately trying to find ways to deny what many of his own Islamic sources admit:
First off, read this what Shamoun states>> " To quote a source that challenges Maududi doesn't prove that the latter was wrong, but only proves that Muslims are a confused bunch!"
So, any source which contradicts Maududi shows Muslims are wrong? Is Maududi the best of the best? Everything Maududi says is true, while everything else is just hoaxes???
Now read this>> " Moreover, Umar wants to infer from the above that Mariyah wasn't a slave due to the exalted language used to describe her and her sister. In so doing, he only exposes his low view and disdain of slaves since his comments presuppose that there is nothing highly respectable about being a slave! This slip by Umar implies that Mariyah could not be highly respected if she were a slave, which presupposes that slaves are low in class and dignity! Why can't one be a highly regarded slave, a slave known for his or her outstanding qualities and piety, as for example Muhammad's adopted son Zaid ibn Haritha who use to be Khadijah's slave that showed outstanding virtue and devotion to Muhammad? In fact, it was because of his devotion to Muhammad that the latter adopted him as a son. "
First of all, it was the Potiphar of Egypt who used the "exalted language".So whatever Shamoun says, is just gibberish and utter nonsense, since Islam respects slaves, and it was the Potiphar of Egypt who used the "exalted language".
We have to disagree on Sam, and Maududi, because proof was shown that Mariyah was indeed the Prophet (S) wife. Once again, we have to remind Shamoun that there are sources which say she was his wife, and others who disagree.
Mariyah was a slave of Muhammad's!
Let us summarize Umar's gross errors which helped to expose not just himself, but his colleagues as well:
1.Umar writes a response citing references to show that Mariyah was Muhammad's wife, as if this somehow is relevant in refuting my article even though I never denied that there were sources stating this point. In fact, my article was written to balance out the one sided Muslim presentations of Bahagia and Zawadi who chose to focus only on those sources affirming Mariyah's status as a wife. Therefore, Umar's response is nothing more than a red herring, a straw man.
2.Umar's citations have only managed to prove that Islamic literature and scholarship are chaotic and contradictory since they can't even get the facts of Muhammad's life and relationships correct!
3.Umar calls into question my use of a specific verse, namely Sura 33:52, to show that if Muhammad had married Mariyah then he was in clear violation of Allah's orders, on the grounds that this prohibition was abrogated. Yet he forgot to mention that not all Muslims believe that the text in question has been abrogated, and that two of his colleagues used this very text in their polemics against both Craig Winn (www.prophetofdoom.net) and myself!
4.Both Umar and another writer, Bassam Zawadi, contradict Osama since they believe Mariyah was one of the wives, whereas Osama cites links that do not. Talk about mass confusion!
So Umar, since you approached this as a matter of having fun, we must conclude that your paper only managed to put the laugh on Bahagia, Osama, Zawadi, and on yourself. I must say the joke is really on you and your colleagues!
We will also summarize this rebuttal into 3 points:
1) It was proven that Mariyah was Muhammad (S) wife, common sense itself refutes that Mariyah was just a slave, since she lived in the outskirts of Medina, and therefore couldn't render to any domestic service to the Prophet (S) or his wives.
2) It was shown that Sura 33:52 WASN'T abrogated. Muhammad Asad and Abdullah Yusuf Ali both agree that the Ayat of Sura 33:52 came after the arrival of Mariyah.
3) I never contradicted my colleagues, it was made clear that I didn't contradict Brother Bassam or Brother Osama. Just because Bro Osama has some links which doesn't cite Mariyah the Copt as Prophet (S) wife, doesn't mean he doesn't think she is his wife.
So Sam Shamoun, previously I said the joke is on you, now you say the joke is on me and my colleagues, now I will repeat it again, but in the words of Brother Osama