The ‘Point of View’ column is reserved for writings by various thinkers. The institution is not necessarily in agreement with the views expressed in the articles published therein.
The Narration of Ubayd ibn Umayr
Ibn Jurayj al-Makki (whose full name is Abd al-Malik ibn Abd al-Aziz ibn Jurayj — Jurayj being his grandfather) narrated from Ata ibn Abi Rabah, who narrated from Ubayd ibn Umayr. Ubayd said: I heard Aisha al-Siddiqah (RA) say that the Prophet (PBUH) would spend more time during the day at the home of Zaynab bint Jahsh (RA), and he used to drink honey there. So, I and Hafsah (RA) made a plan together (to dissuade him from drinking honey at Zaynab’s house), agreeing that whichever of us he visited (after returning from Zaynab’s house) should say to him: “I notice the smell of maghafir gum on you—have you eaten maghafir?”
(Ubayd ibn Umayr said:) Accordingly, when the Prophet (PBUH) came to one of them (I cannot say whether it was Hafsah or Aisha), she said that to him. He replied, “I have not eaten maghafir; I drank honey at Zaynab’s house, but I will never drink it again. I have taken an oath on that. Do not mention this to anyone.”
Ubayd reported that the opening verses of Surah Al-Tahrim were revealed concerning this incident. The Quranic words: ma ahallallahu laka refers to the honey the Prophet (PBUH) drank at Zaynab’s house, and he took an oath not to drink it again in order to please Aisha and Hafsah (RA). And in wa iz asarrannabiyyu il abazi azwajihi hadithan, the “saying (hadithan)” refers to his statement to one of them that he had sworn not to drink honey and asked her not to tell anyone. In in tatuba, the address is to Aisha and Hafsah (RA).
This narration appears in Sahih al-Bukhari in three places: Kitab al-Ayman wa al-Nudhur, Kitab al-Tafsir (under Surah Al-Tahrim), and Kitab al-Talaq. In Kitab al-Ayman and Kitab al-Talaq (Hadith No. 5267), the text is relatively complete, with the wording:
يَقُوْلُ عُبِيدِ بْنُ عُمِير سَمِعْتُ عَائِشَةَ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ يَمْكُثُ عِنْدَ زَيْنَبَ رضى الله عنها ابْنَةِ جَحْشٍ أَنَا وَحَفْصَةُ رضى الله عنها فَوَاطَعْتُ In Kitab al-Tafsir it is رضى الله عنها وَيَشْرَبُ عِنْدَهَا عَسَلًا فَتَوَاصَيْتُ أَنَّ أَيَّتَنَا دَخَلَ عَلَيْهَا النَّبِيُّ صَلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَلْتَقُلْ إِنِّي أَجِدُ مِنْكَ رِيحَ مَغَافِيْرَ ، أَكَلْتَ مَغَافِيْرَ ؟ فَدَخَلَ عَلَى إِحْدَاهُمَا فَقَالَتْ In Kitab) ، لَہ ذَلِكَ فَقَالَ: لَا ، بَلْ شَرِبْتُ عَسَلًا عِنْدَ زَيْنَبَ رضى الله عنها بِنْتِ جَحْشٍ رَضِي اللَّهُ عَنْهَا وَلَنْ أَعُوْدَ لَهُ بَلْ كُنْتُ أَشْرَبُ عَسَلًا عِنْدَ زَيْنَبَ رَضِي الله عَنْهَا بِنْتَ جَحْشِ رضى الله عنها فَلَنْ أَعُوْدَ لَهُ وَقَدْ حَلَفْتُ، لَا : al-Tafsir تُخْبِرِیْ بِذَلِكَ أَحَدًا
فَنَزَلَتْ: يَأَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ لِمَ تُحَرِّمُ مَا أَحَلَّ الله لك التحريم (661) … إِنْ تَتُوبَا إِلَى الله … التحريم 66:4) لِعَائِشَةَ وَحَفْصَةَ، وَإِذْ أَسَرَّ النَّبِيُّ إِلَى بَعْضٍ أَزْوَاجِه حَدِيثًا (التحريم (66:3) لِقَوْلِهِ بَلْ شَرِبْتُ عَسَلًا
(Bukhari: Kitab al-Ayman wa al-Nudhur & Kitab al-Talaq, p. 793, and Kitab al-Tafsir, p. 729, India ed.)
After this Bukhari immediately recorded the narration of Urwah on the same page (p. 793), thus placing both narrations side by side. Muslim (Hadith No. 1474) did the same, as both chains are equally strong, and it was difficult to prefer one over the other.
I say: The decision of the two Shaykhs (may Allah envelop them in His mercy) is contrary to reason, discernment, and the principles of hadith transmission. When two reliable narrators report something in such a way that their accounts conflict directly, and reconciliation between them is impossible, both statements must be disregarded— neither is correct. The scholars have stated this rule thus: idha taaraza al-khabrani tasaqata (“When two reports contradict each other, both fall”).
Imams Bukhari and Muslim were aware that the narrations of Urwah and Ubayd ibn Umayr regarding the story of honey contain a clear contradiction. The narration of Urwah states that the one who gave honey to the Prophet (PBUH) was Hafsah bint Umar (RA), and that Aisha (RA), out of jealousy, conspired with Sawdah and Safiyyah (RA) to accuse him of smelling of maghafir.
However, the narration of Ubayd ibn Umayr says that it was Zaynab bint Jahsh (RA) who gave the honey, and the maghafir plan was made jointly by Aisha and Hafsah (RA). Therefore, both narrations must be deemed incorrect and disregarded.
Accordingly, Bukhari and Muslim should not have included either the narration of Urwah or that of Ubayd in their Sahihs. In truth, both narrations are mere hearsay. Even if only Urwah’s narration had existed, we would still have rejected the story as false; and if only Ubayd’s narration had existed, we would have deemed it mere gossip as well. Thus, even disregarding all other evidence I have already discussed, any reasonable person should have no hesitation in declaring both narrations baseless.
It should be understood regarding the particular narration of Ubayd ibn Umayr that it is a mixture of musnad (connected) and mursal (disconnected) transmission. According to his claim, the part of the report that states:
سَمِعْتُ عَائِشَةَ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ كَانَ يَمْكُثُ عِندَ زَيْنَبَ رضى الله عنها بِنْتِ جَحْشٍ وَيَشْرَبُ عِندَهَا عَسَلًا فَوَاطَأْتُ أَنَا وَحَفْصَةُ ” ” أَنَّ أَيَّتَنَا دَخَلَ عَلَيْهَا النَّبِيُّ فَلْتَقُلْ إِنِّي أَجِدُ مِنْكَ رِيحَ مَغَافِيرَ ، أَكَلْتَ مَغَافِيرَ؟
is connected — meaning Ubayd said that he had heard this from Aisha (RA).
However, from the phrase fadakhala ala ihdahuma faqalat lahu zalika to the end, the statement is Ubayd’s own addition. He did not say that he heard this part also from Aisha (RA). Had he been quoting her words, he would have said fadkhala ala ihdana instead.
Arabic speakers understand this distinction well, but for those unfamiliar with Arabic: • fadkhala ala ihdana means “Then the Prophet (PBUH) came to one of us (i.e. to one of the two of us)”, • whereas fadkhala ala ihdahuma means “Then he came to one of them (i.e. those two women)”.
Thus, since Ubayd’s narration says ihdahuma, it is certainly his own statement, not something heard from Aisha (RA). In other words, half of his narration is samai (heard) and the other half is qiyasi (his own conjecture).
According to his own words, Ubayd only heard from Aisha (RA) that she and Hafsah (RA) had agreed that whichever of them the Prophet (PBUH) would visit, she would say to him: “I sense from you the smell of maghafir (a kind of gum); have you eaten maghafir?”
Ubayd then completed the rest of the story from his imagination — that the Prophet (PBUH) went to either Aisha or Hafsah (RA), she said this to him, and he replied that he had only drunk honey at Zaynab bint Jahsh’s (RA) house and had now sworn not to drink it again, instructing them not to tell anyone.
Having thus filled in the narrative himself, Ubayd told this to Ata ibn Abi Rabah, who told it to Ibn Jurayj, who then claimed that the first five verses of Surah Al-Tahrim were revealed concerning this incident. That is, Allah said to His Prophet (PBUH):
” لِمَ تُحَرِّمُ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَكَ تَبْتَغِي مَرْضَاتَ أَزْوَاجِكَ”
“O Prophet, why do you prohibit (for yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives?” (Al-Tahrim 66:1) — meaning, why did you vow not to drink honey? Then Allah rebuked Aisha and Hafsah (RA) saying:
” إِنْ تَتُوبَا إِلَى اللَّهِ فَقَدْ صَغَتْ قُلُوبُكُمَا
“If you both repent to Allah, your hearts have indeed inclined (to error).” (Al-Tahrim 66:4)
However, the truth is that this narration of Ubayd ibn Umayr is entirely false — both the first half that he claims to have heard (samai) and the second half that he fabricated by conjecture (mudraj).
This is proven by the fact that Ubayd neither studied the first five verses of Surah Al-Tahrim carefully nor understood the Quran’s style, in which whenever Allah says wa idh, it introduces a new, independent event, separate from what preceded.
Ubayd ibn Umayr ibn Qatadah al-Laythi al-Jundai al-Makki was a tabii (successor), and preaching was his occupation. Preachers (waiẓun) are usually careless in reporting traditions, being more interested in moving their audiences emotionally rather than in maintaining precision.
Ubayd never went to Madinah to acquire knowledge from Umm al-Muminin Aisha (RA). She used to visit Makkah for Hajj, and during those occasions Ubayd, then a young boy, would be in her presence. It is inconceivable that Aisha (RA) would relate to a non-relative minor such a personal story about herself and Hafsah (RA) — one she never shared with anyone else in her lifetime. Reason alone rejects this possibility.
Therefore, the claim in this narration that Ubayd said samitu Aisha is false. Allah knows best whether this falsehood originated from Ubayd himself, from Ata ibn Abi Rabah, or from Ibn Jurayj.
Ibn Jurayj was indeed a prolific muhaddith, but his reputation was tainted by two flaws:
1. He was known for tadlis (concealing weak transmitters), a habit of narrators who knew a report was weak but still wanted it circulated without revealing its defect.
2. He practiced and advocated mutah (temporary marriage). Imam al-Shafi said that Ibn Jurayj contracted mutah with seventy women in his lifetime.
As stated in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (6/360):
” وَقَالَ الشَّافِعِيُّ اسْتَمْتَعَ ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ بِسَبْعِينَ امْرَأَةٍ“
—and the learned are well aware that mutah is in fact a form of zina (fornication), though the Rafidah and Shiah sects consider it lawful and even meritorious.
This indicates that Ibn Jurayj held Rafidi leanings, though he concealed them under the guise of taqiyyah (dissimulation). It is thus quite possible that Ata originally said, “yaqulu Ubayd bin Umair an Aisha (RA)”, while Ibn Jurayj, desiring to spread this false report to cast suspicion upon Mother of the Believers, Aisha (RA), changed it to “samitu Aisha“.
This would align with the sectarian motive, since the Rafidah and Shiah harbor deep enmity and hatred toward Aisha al-Siddiqah (RA).
In any case, the first half of Ubayd ibn Umayr’s narration, which he claims to have heard (samai), was certainly not something he actually heard from Aisha (RA). How could the Mother of the Believers have related such an absurd story? Allah alone knows from whom Ubayd ibn Umayr heard this false and senseless tale—and whoever that person was, he must have harbored malice toward Aisha (RA).
As for the latter half of his narration, which is based on conjecture (qiyasi), it too is absolutely false from beginning to end.
I say: even if one were to assume for argument’s sake that the so-called “honey incident” did in fact occur-whether as described in Urwah’s narration or as related by Ubayd ibn Umayr-still, the divine statement: “يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ لِمَ تُحَرِّمُ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَكَ تَبْتَغِي مَرْضَاتَ أَزْوَاجِكَ” (Al-Tahrim 66:1) has no connection whatsoever with that story.
If this were truly the story being referred to, Allah would not have said to His Prophet (PBUH): “Why do you prohibit for yourself that which Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives?” Because, according to both versions of the honey story, the Prophet (PBUH) refrained from the honey not to please his wives, but because of his dislike for an unpleasant odor. Thus, the Quranic rebuke — “tabtaghi marzata azwajika” — would have been meaningless in that context. And it is inconceivable that any word in the Quran could be out of place or without purpose. Therefore, since this interpretation leads to such an absurdity, it must be rejected. These verses simply cannot pertain to the honey narrative.
Moreover, had Allah truly reproved the Prophet (PBUH) for forbidding himself the honey he drank at the house of Zaynab (RA) or Hafsah (RA), the Quran would have said “lima harramta” (past tense: “Why did you prohibit…”) instead of “lima tuharrimu” (present tense: “Why are you prohibiting…”).
Anyone blessed with even a modest understanding of the Quran knows that whenever the word “wa idh” appears, it introduces a distinct and independent event, separate from the one mentioned before it. One need only read the sixth, seventh, and eighth rukuʿs of Surah Al-Baqarah to see this pattern clearly.
Accordingly, in Surah Al-Tahrim, when Allah says: ” وَإِذْ أَسَرَّ النَّبِيُّ إِلَى بَعْضٍ أَزْوَاجِهِ حَدِيثًا” it refers to an incident different from the one indicated earlier in:
“يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ لِمَ تُحَرِّمُ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَكَ.”
However, because Ubayd ibn Umayr lacked true understanding of the Quran, he mistakenly connected the verse “wa idh asarrannabiyyu…” to that baseless honey tale.
A detailed and explicit explanation of these verses, and indeed of the entire Surah Al-Tahrim, can be read in my book Miftah al-Quran, Volume V. Here, I will only summarize that two distinct incidents related to the Prophet’s noble wives (azwaj mutahharat) are mentioned in these verses.
The First Incident
The first event concerns the Prophet (PBUH) intending, for the sake of his wives’ satisfaction, to abstain from something lawful that Allah had permitted him. This refers to his intimate relationship with Mariyah al- Qibtiyyah (RA). She was a bondwoman of the Prophet (PBUH), and from her was born his son Ibrahim. This naturally stirred jealousy among the other wives. They requested that the Prophet (PBUH) cease relations with Mariyah (RA).
This demand was based on the reasoning that a husband is not religiously obligated to have conjugal relations with his slave-woman, whereas it is obligatory for him to maintain marital rights with his wife. Thus, if a man has two wives, neither can rightfully demand that he abstain from relations with the other, for that would be a violation of her co-wife’s right. Such a demand is unlawful (Haram).
However, if a man has a wife and also a slave-girl, and the wife requests that he abstain from relations with the latter, her request is not unlawful, since it does not entail depriving another wife of her right. Yet, the husband is free to accept or reject such a request.
Therefore, when the Mothers of the Believers requested the Prophet (PBUH) to refrain from relations with Mariyah (RA), their demand was not legally forbidden. The Prophet (PBUH) considered that there might be no harm in accommodating them. But Allah did not approve of even this intention, for the Prophet’s wives should have been seeking his pleasure, not the other way around.
Thus, Allah addressed His Prophet (PBUH) saying:
” يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ لِمَ تُحَرِّمُ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَكَ تَبْتَغِي مَرْضَاتَ أَزْوَاجِكَ”
“O Prophet, why do you prohibit (for yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you? Do you seek the approval of your wives?” (Al-Tahrim 66:1)
Meaning: It is your wives who ought to seek your approval, not you theirs, to the extent of giving up something lawful. Then Allah said:
” وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ”
“And Allah is All-Forgiving, All-Merciful.” (Al-Tahrim 66:1) — that is, your wives have acted unbecomingly in pressing this request upon you, yet forgive them, for Allah is Forgiving and Merciful; and His Prophet should display the same graciousness.
It should also be noted that the Prophet (PBUH) had only intended to comply with their request; he had not yet acted upon it. Had he actually refrained from relations with Mariyah (RA), Allah would have said “lima harramta” (past tense), not “lima tuharrimu” (present tense).
Allah’s address to His Prophet (PBUH) with the words “lima tuharrimu…” could lead Muslims to wonder whether it is impermissible to take an oath regarding a permissible act (i.e., to declare something lawful as forbidden upon oneself). To remove this misunderstanding, Allah immediately addressed the believers, saying:
” قَدْ فَرَضَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ تَحِلَّةَ أَيْمَانِكُمْ”
“Allah has prescribed for you a way to absolve yourselves from your oaths.” (Al-Tahrim 66:2)
Meaning: if you have sworn to abstain from a lawful act, but later wish to resume it, Allah has already ordained the means for expiation — as detailed in Surah Al-Maidah: feeding ten needy people, or clothing them, or freeing a slave; and if unable to do any of these, fasting for three days.
Thus, taking an oath regarding a permissible act is not forbidden, for Allah has shown the way to atone for breaking such an oath.
” وَاللَّهُ مَوْلَاكُمْ وَهُوَ الْعَلِيمُ الْحَكِيمُ”
“And Allah is your Master, and He is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Al-Tahrim 66:2)
The Second Incident
The second incident that occurred around the same period was this: The Prophet (PBUH) had confided something in Hafsah (RA) as a secret. Thinking that since the Prophet (PBUH) loved Aisha (RA) dearly, there would be no harm in telling her, Hafsah (RA) shared that confidential matter with Aisha (RA). Allah informed the Prophet (PBUH) that the wife to whom he had confided a secret had disclosed it to another.
The Prophet (PBUH) said to Hafsah (RA) in a tone of reproach, “You have disclosed that secret — you did not keep it.” Instead of expressing remorse for her mistake, she asked, “Who told you about this?” She assumed that Aisha (RA) must have informed him, since she had mentioned it to no one else. The Prophet (PBUH) replied, “He informed me Who is the All-Knowing and the All-Aware” — meaning Allah Himself had told him.
Hafsah (RA) did not consider her mistake significant, nor did she express repentance. Aisha (RA) and Hafsah (RA) shared a deep affection and were closely aligned — both had earlier pressed the Prophet (PBUH) to abstain from relations with Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah (RA). Now this new incident added to their mutual entanglement.
Overwhelmed with grief, the Prophet (PBUH) swore to stay away from them for one month. Umm Salamah (RA) reported:
“أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حَلَفَ أَنْ لَا يَدْخُلَ عَلَى بَعْضٍ أَهْلِهِ شَهْرًا”
“Indeed, the Prophet (PBUH) swore an oath that he would not enter upon some of his family for a month.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Nikah)
The phrase “bazi ahlihi” refers to Aisha (RA) and Hafsah (RA). When a husband swears not to approach his wife, it is called ila in Islamic terminology. The Prophet (PBUH) had not taken ila from all his wives, but only from these two; however, in practice, he secluded himself from all of them for a month and stayed in the upper chamber. Hence, some narrations mention generally that the Prophet (PBUH) made ila from his wives, which led less-informed commentators and biographers to mistakenly think it applied to all of them.
Concerning this second event — the disclosure of the secret — Allah revealed:
“وَإِذْ أَسَرَّ النَّبِيُّ إِلَى بَعْضٍ أَزْوَاجِهِ حَدِيثًا”
“And when the Prophet (PBUH) confided a matter to one of his wives…” (Al-Tahrim 66:3)
That is, he told her something and instructed her not to disclose it.
فَلَمَّا نَبَّأَتْ بِهِ وَأَظْهَرَهُ اللهُ عَلَيْهِ عَرَّفَ بَعْضَهُ وَأَعْرَضَ عَنْ بَعْضٍ
“When she told it (to another) and Allah made it known to him, he informed her of part of it and overlooked part of it.” (Al-Tahrim 66:3)
That is, he mentioned her mistake in general terms, saying, “You have disclosed that matter.”
…. فَلَمَّا نَبَّأَهَا بِهِۦ قَالَتْ مَنْ أَنبَأَكَ هَـٰذَا قَالَ نَبَّأَنِىَ الْعَلِيمُ الْخَبِيرُ
“When he told her about it, she said: Who informed you of this? He replied: The All-Knowing, the All-Aware informed me.” (Al-Tahrim 66:3)
As for what that secret was — only Allah knows. Hafsah (RA) told it solely to Aisha (RA) and never to anyone else; nor did Aisha (RA) ever mention it thereafter. None of the Companions ever sought to ask the Prophet (PBUH) about it. Therefore, we too should refrain from trying to uncover it — for neither the Quran mentions it, nor any authentic Hadith, nor has any Companion spoken of it.
اکنوں کِرا دماغ کہ پُرسَد زِ باغباں
بلبل چہ گُفت و گل چہ شَنيد و صبا چہ کرد
(“Who now has the mind to ask the gardener — what did the nightingale say, what did the rose hear,
and what did the breeze do?”)
Indeed, the books of exegesis contain all sorts of baseless conjectures — utterly unreliable and unworthy of attention. In Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, only this statement of Umar (RA) is reported:
وَكَانَ قَدْ أَقْسَمَ أَنْ لَا يَدْخُلَ عَلَيْهِنَّ شَهْرًا ، فَاعْتَزَلَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَلِكَ الْحَدِيثِ حِينَ أَفْشَتْهُ حَفْصَةُ “ ” لِعَائِشَةَ تِسْعًا وَعِشْرِينَ لَيْلَةً
“The Prophet (PBUH) had sworn not to approach his wives for a month, and he withdrew from them for twenty-nine nights because of the matter that Hafsah (RA) had disclosed to Aisha (RA).” (Bukhari, No. 2468, 5191; Muslim, No. 1479)
Regarding these two noble Mothers of the Believers, Allah said:
إِنْ تَتُوبَا إِلَى اللهِ فَقَدْ صَغَتْ قُلُوبُكُمَا وَإِنْ تَظَاهَرَا عَلَيْهِ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ مَوْلَاهُ وَجِبْرِيلُ وَصَالِحُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمَلَائِكَةُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ “ ظَهِيرٌ
“If you both repent to Allah, (it will be better for you) for your hearts have inclined to that which is not befitting you; but if you support each other against him, then surely Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and the righteous among the believers; and the angels thereafter are his supporters.” (Al-Tahrim 66:4)
That is, two paths lie before you — one right and one wrong. The right path is to repent to Allah; jealousy and rivalry have led your hearts astray, so correct yourselves. The wrong path is to persist jointly in causing the Prophet (PBUH) grief and in seeking to make him act according to your wishes. If you take that path, it will lead to your loss — you will forfeit Allah’s grace, the angels’ prayers, and the believers’ affection. Even your illustrious fathers would be grieved by you. You would be deprived of the honor of being the Prophet’s wives. And do not imagine that Allah cannot provide His Messenger with better wives than you — more virtuous and better in character.
These two incidents, in themselves, were not particularly grave. But the Mothers of the Believers were no ordinary women — they were exalted far above the level of other believing women. Allah had honored them with the companionship of that greatest of all beings, of whom it may be truly said: “After God, you are the greatest — the story is short.” Therefore, even for such apparently small matters, Allah subjected them to such stern admonition that their story was recorded forever in the Quran — so that they themselves, reading these verses throughout their lives, might feel remorse: “Ah, if only we had not erred against the Messenger of Allah (PBUH).” And the Mother of the Believers who had disclosed that secret would sigh: “If only I had not done so.”
May the sons and daughters of these noble Mothers — that is, all believing men and women — as they read these verses, perceive upon the luminous and pure countenance of their noble Mothers these two small beauty spots of human imperfection.
ٰاللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ وَسَلَّمْ عَلَى رَسُولِكَ مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى أَزْوَاجِهِ كَمَا تُحِبُّ وَتَرْضى عَدَدَ مَا تُحِبُّ وَتَرْضَى
“O Allah, send blessings and peace upon Your Messenger Muhammad and upon his wives, as You love and are pleased — in the number that You love and are pleased.”
[To be continued]