Why is Yasir Qadhi saying the Prophet was infatuated with Zaynab?

Behave you you sickle sickle, you sickle. So people now let's before we close off for the day there was an I wanted to speak about our beloved right so that is from the beloveds it is none other than huh no no it's not our ass we've spoken last week about ass and it's It's uh it's what is what is going

on? Uh no no no no no no it's not this it's not but Gangotelli has also brought this to our attention I want to speak about our beloved none other with a small D thanh you see I genuinely don't understand and I've had a few people message me and ask me as well they've said look what is the story with Sheikh Yasar Kabi and I genuinely don't get it.

They've said that why is he making certain comments? Is he doing them on purpose? Is he doing them by accident? Is he doing them by is he giving material to Islamophobes? So for example, he began with the yat jat zombies tikk even though he's calling me a deviant at the time but then you know this thing like uh the Quran such a uh which he you know I don't believe he was that stupid in he knew I believe he knew what he he's doing but then there's this clip

on the wife of the prophet Zan Now, I genuinely don't get what's going on here. He seems to be saying that this uh clip that sorry this this concept which a lot of Islamophobes like to throw around that the prophet lusted after uh another man's wife which was his adopted son Zade.

So they say, "Oh, that the prophet lusted after Zanab bint Jash." And I've got a whole video. Please do watch that video. It's it's on YouTube. It's called a reply to atheist claims the prophet lusted over another man's wife. And you can see there it's it's been up for about 10 months now. And it's quite a detailed video, about 44 minutes there, where I explain that this is ridiculous.

It makes no sense. This woman uh uh Zay bin Jasha, she was related to the prophet. The prophet had grown up with her. He knew her all. You know this this thing about oh my god he one day saw her here and became like wow. It's ridiculous. It makes no sense. In fact, the prophet is the one who who invites that proposal.

he sets up for Zed to marry um Zanab. Now if you do want a detailed breakdown, you can watch it. But what's happened is she has now made a clip saying well you know this clip sorry this concept that the prophet saw her and felt something for her is um is a genuine narrative of Islam.

And our other below has actually made a video and to be fair on this point I agree with Gangutang who's actually made Gangutelli Sab has made a video where he has also put together about Yaser Ali making these statements which is a bit longer.

I've just got a few minutes to share with you here, but he's got a lengthier piece with David Wood speaking and other people as well and stuff like that, but I genuinely don't get what's going on with Yas. Let's just have a a listen. Let's finally move on to that says, and he has an is by the way, so it's not as if he's narrating it. goes back to the prophet went to visit Zade but Zade was not home and Zanab came to answer his knock and this was before hijab had been revealed.

This is a key point here. Hijab has not come down yet. The verse to cover your hair has not come down. So she comes rushing and the prophetam saw her and then averted his gaze. So the very fact that he's turning away indicates something and he started saying things and Zan just caught phrases subhan all you see it's not the turning away but it's these kind of wordings and you got to remember that full narration that he's referring to he simply turned around and walked away shows a kind of becoming infatuated will demonstrate as well a reality that

I have hinted at before and by Now we are alhamdulillah those that have been with me from the beginning. So now you know my my my um style and my uh my the the importance that I give to academic integrity. I don't sugarcoat. I don't paint picture. I need to tell you the facts because if you don't hear them from me and you hear them from somebody else then it's going to cause problems. So I believe it or not does not mention the entire incident which is so it's showing that doesn't have it not that is about this isn't problematic but he doesn't it's not there and some have criticized him for not mentioning anything about

the details of Zanab's story who is one of the earliest commentators of see the problem is that mentions unacceptable this I'll call this comment the original prototype version or call it version A if you like and this is the detail he calls this the prototype found in pretty much every book of early Islam and pretty much every book of hadith that mentions this story and I'm going to call this version A and it is the version that is found in the vast majority dare I say all of the earliest and

that's not true by the way what he's saying isn't factually isn't And let me give you for example and this is the earliest written from him refuting this same point7 the earliest books written the earliest hadith books written the the ofkari all of these books give a radically different story and it's very clear to me that this was the normative understanding of early he says this was the normative many early of is died 150 and he has this narrative as well.

Another question arises where does this love story exist? Response where this love story we're getting a little bit academic here but it exists in a called andb by unanimous consensus is not a scholar. He's not a historian. He is to be fair I disagree with him on this point. I would say he was a scholar but I think he's being a bit he's a tabloid paper. He's not the New York Times.

Literally, he's a tabloid paper. So, the orientalist, imagine, and I accept his conference when I was defending the story in a certain context. I said, imagine walking into uh a bookstore, walking into a supermarket and ignoring the New York Times, ignoring, you know, the Washington Post, ignoring every single reputable the Times magazine, Newsweek, and getting your news from the Daily Inquirer, for example.

This is the equivalent of what these people are doing. They ignore every single authentic legitimate book and they go to the most obscure references. How many of you have even heard of? Yes, it exists. It's not a fabrication. Meaning the book is not a fabrication. What's inside it might be, but the book itself it exists. How many of you are aware of it? Nobody. But these guys hunt down these stories, extract them and popularize thing that we learn and I'll lay the beans very just spill the beans very clearly.

What we see here and I find it problematic very clearly I find it problematic. What we see is that this is his recent some incidents as Islamic history evolved the story was sanitized and made easier and more palatable for the mass. So he's trying to say they removed the the dodgy part. Now this this thing was done by as you can see okay the transformation was done by Gangutilli but the story was sanitized and made easier and more palatable for the masses to deal with.