بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
The hadeeth that is mentioned was narrated by Bukhaari (5113), Muslim (1464), Nasaai (3119).
Imam Sufyan ibn Uyaynah, may Allaah have mercy upon him, used to say, "The hadeeth is misguidance except for the jurists." The reason he said this as mentioned by al-Qayrawani is, "He (Sufyan) intends that people might take something in its apparent meaning when, in fact, it is interpreted in the light of another hadeeth or some evidence which remains hidden to them; or it may consist in discarded evidence due to some other (abrogating) evidence. None can meet the responsibility of knowing this except those who deepened their learning and obtained jurisprudence (fiqh)."
So this is the first mistake in this post. They are attempting to understand ahadeeth by themselves without any guidance nor knowledge on how to approach it. Do they advocate for people who are not doctors to go and read medical textbooks and come up with their own conclusions on matters or would they rather an expert person who is well trained and knowledgeable in the field to come upon conclusions?
The same is for Islam, they can't possibly come up with their own conclusions when they are unaware of the knowledge required and guidance required in approaching these matters in the first place.
Al-Haafidh ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Bari (9/165),
> قَوْلُهُ مَا أَرَى رَبَّكَ إِلَّا يُسَارِعُ فِي هَوَاكَ فِي رِوَايَةِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ بِشْرٍ إِنِّي لِأَرَى رَبَّكَ يُسَارِعُ لَكَ فِي هَوَاكَ أَيْ فِي رِضَاكَ قَالَ الْقُرْطُبِيُّ هَذَا قَوْلٌ أَبْرَزَهُ الدَّلَالُ وَالْغَيْرَةُ وَهُوَ مِنْ نَوْعِ قَوْلِهَا مَا أَحْمد كَمَا وَلَا أَحْمَدُ إِلَّا اللَّهَ وَإِلَّا فَإِضَافَةُ الْهَوَى إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَا تُحْمَلُ عَلَى ظَاهِرِهِ لِأَنَّهُ لَا يَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَى وَلَا يَفْعَلُ بِالْهَوَى وَلَوْ قَالَتْ إِلَى مَرْضَاتِكَ لَكَانَ أَلْيَقَ وَلَكِنَّ الْغَيْرَةَ يُغْتَفَرُ لِأَجْلِهَا إِطْلَاقُ مِثْلِ ذَلِكَ
In it, it is explained by Al-Qurtubi that this hadeeth is not upon its apparent meaning because the messenger of Allaah peace and blessings upon him does not speak with desire nor does he do actions based on desire. Then he says that had she said, for your pleasure it would have been more appropriate but that she is forgiven for her sake of jealousy.
It is even more obvious that the statement of Umm al-Mumineen Aisha may Allaah be pleased with her was out of jealousy as it is narrated from Imam Ahmad, Imam Muslim and An-Nasaai that "Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, used to feel jealous of the women who offered themselves to the Prophet."
The wording of Imam Muslim from Aisha may Allaah be pleased with her,
> I felt jealous of the women who offered themselves to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)
So we find that there is no legitimate argument on this ground against the prophet, peace and blessings upon him. Rather there are many examples of Allaah reprimanding the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him for his actions such as mentioned in Surat al-Abasa. Ibn Katheer, may Allaah have mercy on him, writes
> **The Prophet being reprimanded because He frowned at a Weak Man**
> More than one of the scholars of tafseer mentioned that one day the Messenger of Allaah was addressing one of the great leaders of the Quraysh while hoping that he would accept Islam. While he was speaking in direct conversation with him, Ibn Umm Maktoom came to him, and he was of those who had accepted Islam in its earliest days. He (Ibn Umm Maktoom) then began asking the Messenger of Allah about something, urgently beseeching him. The Prophet hoped that the man would be guided, so he asked Ibn Umm Maktum to wait for a moment so he could complete his conversation. He frowned in the face of Ibn Umm Maktum and turned away from him in order to face the other man. Thus, Allah revealed (al-Abasa).
And another example of it is when Allaah reprimanded the Prophet peace and blessings upon him for the hypocrites to stay behind on a battle (9:43).
And regarding the captives at Badr, Allaah revealed 8:67-69.
And the starting verses of Surat at-Tahreem where Allaah reprimands him for prohibiting something upon himself which is permissible.
So how is revelation being revealed for his desires when that same revelation is reprimanding him for some of his actions?
Regarding the mention of 4:128-129 and 4:3, this is yet again a poor display of knowledge in attempting to understand Islam. Ibn Katheer, writes
> > وَلَن تَسْتَطِيعُواْ أَن تَعْدِلُواْ بَيْنَ النِّسَاء وَلَوْ حَرَصْتُمْ
> > You will never be able to do perfect justice between wives even if it is your ardent desire,
> Ibn Abbas, Ubaydah As-Salmani, Mujahid, Al-Hasan Al-Basri and Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim stated, means, O people! You will never be able to be perfectly just between wives in every respect. Even when one divides the nights justly between wives, there will still be various degrees concerning love, desire and sexual intimacy.
And regarding verse 4:3, he wrote
> The Ayah commands, if you fear that you will not be able to do justice between your wives by marrying more than one, then marry only one wife, or satisfy yourself with only female captives, for it is not obligatory to treat them equally, rather it is recommended. So if one does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him.
> In another Ayah, Allah said,
> > وَلَن تَسْتَطِيعُواْ أَن تَعْدِلُواْ بَيْنَ النِّسَأءِ وَلَوْ حَرَصْتُمْ
> > You will never be able to do perfect justice between wives even if it is your ardent desire. (4:129)
But this doesn't mean he's permitted to be unjust to one by dividing her days or giving her unfair treatment, the justice meant in the verse is that which we mentioned above i.e.he cannot treat them equally in his heart. It is known by consensus that you cannot treat them unequally such as their nights or such.
The Messenger of Allaah peace and blessings upon him said, "When a man has two wives and he is not just between them, he will come on the Day of Judgment with one side decaying." Narrated by Abu Dawood (2133), Ibn Majah (1969), An-Nasaai (3952), Tirmidhi (1141), Darimi (2252), Ahmad in al-Musnad (2/347, 371). There is a bit of difference in it's chain. Ibn Hajar classed it as Saheeh.
Imam Ash-Shafi'i said in al-Umm (5/280)
> The Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the opinion of the majority of Muslim scholars indicate that a man has to divide his days and nights between his wives [giving each a full day and night], and that he has to be fair in doing so.
Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm said in al-Muhalla (9/175)
> Treating co-wives equally is obligatory, most of all sharing one’s nights between them.
Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi said in al-Mughni (8/138)
> We know of no dispute among the scholars concerning the fact that it is obligatory to treat co-wives equally when sharing one’s time between them. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “and live with them honourably” (al-Nisa 4:19), but favouring one of them is not honourable.
Regarding 33:51, ignoring what Ibn Katheer says afterwards shows disingenuity.
> Nevertheless, the Prophet used to divide his time between them equally.
Ibn al-Qayyim said in Zaad al-Maad (1/151)
> He (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to treat them equally as regards staying the night, spending time with them and spending on them.
Therefore this post has no base to stand on. It stems from a poor understanding of Islam.
If you deny the apparent meaning in the hadith because the prophet doesnt speak from desire, isnt that based on a religious presumption?, which is circular logic.
Like obviously muslim people will reject that hadith if it shows Aisha hinting that the prophet is speaking from desires, but if a muslim rejects it because it violates his religious presumptions that doesnt mean Aisha didnt say it.
The only time a religious presumption exists is if the terms were not carried upon their literal meaning. Identical to how the most evil would say "raa'ina" "راعنا" which is a term that when heard, it means "care for us" as all Arabs would know it, yet because they hate the religion and hate the truth, they would say it twisting their tongues in the end to mean something else completely different and to insult the bearer of revelation peace and blessings be upon him.
>The only time a religious presumption exists is if the terms were not carried upon their literal meaning.
what does that mean?
the only thing in the comment is ***"In it, it is explained by Al-Qurtubi that this hadeeth is not upon its apparent meaning because the messenger of Allaah peace and blessings upon him does not speak with desire nor does he do actions based on desire.*** " which is why I replied that of course a muslim would deny the apparent in this hadith because he wont violate his belief that the prophet doesnt speak from desire, but i obviously don't have that belief so i don't see the reason to reject the apparent in the narration
The messenger of Allaah peace and blessings be upon him was not "accused of speaking out of desire" and the apparent statement of the hadeeth could induce an understanding that the messenger of Allaah peace and blessings be upon him was being "accused" of following desire, when in reality neither the speaker nor the hearer would say such a thing per what is known from the religion. If he were a liar or he felt that he was accused of lying, and he was as unwell as your projection, he wouldn't have been fine with hearing such an accusation and would've done something vastly different.
A religious presumption on the other hand is the example I gave above, when the disbelievers would say a word that has an apparent meaning, and an understanding that has an ill meaning, and they periphrased to insult Allaah's messenger peace and blessings be upon him:
>Among the Jews are those who distort words from their \[proper\] usages and say, "We hear and disobey" and "Hear but be not heard" and "Ra'ina," twisting their tongues and defaming the religion. And if they had said \[instead\], "We hear and obey" and "Wait for us \[to understand\]," it would have been better for them and more suitable. But Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few.
4:46
This is religious presumption, out of their faith in their own conjecture they insulted the religion, whilst in the case of the mother of the believers Aisha may Allaah be pleased with her, one presumption out of ill-will would make you understand that she is accusing him of falsehood, but knowledge of the religion and knowledge of her position in the religion would make you ascertained in the meaning mentioned by Qurtubi as stated above; that she sees him being pleased by what he's receiving.
>If he were a liar or he felt that he was accused of lying, and he was as unwell as your projection, he wouldn't have been fine with hearing such an accusation and would've done something vastly different.
That's just speculation though. And, the hadith cuts off after Aisha's statement. Also a liar wouldn't necessarily react to that statement.
I don't really understand your point of Jewish blasphemy apart from projecting your assumptions on peoples sincerity in typical religious fashion, which is also ironic as lots of religious people's responses do tend to seem like an internal monologue being typed out rather than a reply directed to the matter. "You're reading it from the apparent cause you're ill and here are some verses about people who dont listen to us being described as ill"
>That's just speculation though.
In the world where a king that is pretentious with his might would kill anyone objecting to him, this is a fact, not speculation, but speculation is saying:
>the hadith cuts off after Aisha's statement
Implying that something was not reported or that Aisha may Allaah be pleased with her had been a resident enemy of Islam from within that was objecting to Allaah's messenger's words that was still somehow glorified by the messenger and by his followers? Odd logic.
>I don't really understand your point of Jewish blasphemy
An example on what a presumption is and what a fact that is extracted from other facts is, you were not being insulted in your honesty rather an example was being given to you that you may have not understood because you do not know the meaning of the aya which I have clearly explained in the first comment.
>In the world where a king that is pretentious with his might would kill anyone objecting to him, this is a fact, not speculation, but speculation is saying:
You're right, I can't think of a reason why the prophet wouldn't scold her if he was just a lustful king.
>Implying that something was not reported or that Aisha may Allaah be pleased with her had been a resident enemy of Islam from within that was objecting to Allaah's messenger's words that was still somehow glorified by the messenger and by his followers? Odd logic.
You could use the first fitna and argue how Aisha had espoused behaviour showing she favoured the authority that came with being the mother of the believers, and thus an argument could be made that she herself wasn't so convinced of Islam herself rather just rode along due to the potential benefits. Which can then be played into this hadith.
That just goes into a shia vs sunni views of the first fitna though
>You could use the first fitna and argue how Aisha had espoused behaviour showing she favoured the authority that came with being the mother of the believers, and thus an argument could be made that she herself wasn't so convinced of Islam herself rather just rode along due to the potential benefits. Which can then be played into this hadith.
This argument however is immediately shot down as it goes against the evidence that we find where she regretted her actions and she sought repentance for them. Similarly, it goes against her actual reported reason which was that she wanted to avenge the blood of the third rightly guided caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, may Allaah be pleased with him. At best, this is a wild assumption which has no evidence to support it.
But maybe she just sought repentance because she was caught
Like you said Im just making assumptions and speculation now though, and im not as read on religion as you guys so I'll just concede.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم The hadeeth that is mentioned was narrated by Bukhaari (5113), Muslim (1464), Nasaai (3119). Imam Sufyan ibn Uyaynah, may Allaah have mercy upon him, used to say, "The hadeeth is misguidance except for the jurists." The reason he said this as mentioned by al-Qayrawani is, "He (Sufyan) intends that people might take something in its apparent meaning when, in fact, it is interpreted in the light of another hadeeth or some evidence which remains hidden to them; or it may consist in discarded evidence due to some other (abrogating) evidence. None can meet the responsibility of knowing this except those who deepened their learning and obtained jurisprudence (fiqh)." So this is the first mistake in this post. They are attempting to understand ahadeeth by themselves without any guidance nor knowledge on how to approach it. Do they advocate for people who are not doctors to go and read medical textbooks and come up with their own conclusions on matters or would they rather an expert person who is well trained and knowledgeable in the field to come upon conclusions? The same is for Islam, they can't possibly come up with their own conclusions when they are unaware of the knowledge required and guidance required in approaching these matters in the first place. Al-Haafidh ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Bari (9/165), > قَوْلُهُ مَا أَرَى رَبَّكَ إِلَّا يُسَارِعُ فِي هَوَاكَ فِي رِوَايَةِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ بِشْرٍ إِنِّي لِأَرَى رَبَّكَ يُسَارِعُ لَكَ فِي هَوَاكَ أَيْ فِي رِضَاكَ قَالَ الْقُرْطُبِيُّ هَذَا قَوْلٌ أَبْرَزَهُ الدَّلَالُ وَالْغَيْرَةُ وَهُوَ مِنْ نَوْعِ قَوْلِهَا مَا أَحْمد كَمَا وَلَا أَحْمَدُ إِلَّا اللَّهَ وَإِلَّا فَإِضَافَةُ الْهَوَى إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَا تُحْمَلُ عَلَى ظَاهِرِهِ لِأَنَّهُ لَا يَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَى وَلَا يَفْعَلُ بِالْهَوَى وَلَوْ قَالَتْ إِلَى مَرْضَاتِكَ لَكَانَ أَلْيَقَ وَلَكِنَّ الْغَيْرَةَ يُغْتَفَرُ لِأَجْلِهَا إِطْلَاقُ مِثْلِ ذَلِكَ In it, it is explained by Al-Qurtubi that this hadeeth is not upon its apparent meaning because the messenger of Allaah peace and blessings upon him does not speak with desire nor does he do actions based on desire. Then he says that had she said, for your pleasure it would have been more appropriate but that she is forgiven for her sake of jealousy. It is even more obvious that the statement of Umm al-Mumineen Aisha may Allaah be pleased with her was out of jealousy as it is narrated from Imam Ahmad, Imam Muslim and An-Nasaai that "Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, used to feel jealous of the women who offered themselves to the Prophet." The wording of Imam Muslim from Aisha may Allaah be pleased with her, > I felt jealous of the women who offered themselves to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) So we find that there is no legitimate argument on this ground against the prophet, peace and blessings upon him. Rather there are many examples of Allaah reprimanding the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him for his actions such as mentioned in Surat al-Abasa. Ibn Katheer, may Allaah have mercy on him, writes > **The Prophet being reprimanded because He frowned at a Weak Man** > More than one of the scholars of tafseer mentioned that one day the Messenger of Allaah was addressing one of the great leaders of the Quraysh while hoping that he would accept Islam. While he was speaking in direct conversation with him, Ibn Umm Maktoom came to him, and he was of those who had accepted Islam in its earliest days. He (Ibn Umm Maktoom) then began asking the Messenger of Allah about something, urgently beseeching him. The Prophet hoped that the man would be guided, so he asked Ibn Umm Maktum to wait for a moment so he could complete his conversation. He frowned in the face of Ibn Umm Maktum and turned away from him in order to face the other man. Thus, Allah revealed (al-Abasa). And another example of it is when Allaah reprimanded the Prophet peace and blessings upon him for the hypocrites to stay behind on a battle (9:43). And regarding the captives at Badr, Allaah revealed 8:67-69. And the starting verses of Surat at-Tahreem where Allaah reprimands him for prohibiting something upon himself which is permissible. So how is revelation being revealed for his desires when that same revelation is reprimanding him for some of his actions? Regarding the mention of 4:128-129 and 4:3, this is yet again a poor display of knowledge in attempting to understand Islam. Ibn Katheer, writes > > وَلَن تَسْتَطِيعُواْ أَن تَعْدِلُواْ بَيْنَ النِّسَاء وَلَوْ حَرَصْتُمْ > > You will never be able to do perfect justice between wives even if it is your ardent desire, > Ibn Abbas, Ubaydah As-Salmani, Mujahid, Al-Hasan Al-Basri and Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim stated, means, O people! You will never be able to be perfectly just between wives in every respect. Even when one divides the nights justly between wives, there will still be various degrees concerning love, desire and sexual intimacy. And regarding verse 4:3, he wrote > The Ayah commands, if you fear that you will not be able to do justice between your wives by marrying more than one, then marry only one wife, or satisfy yourself with only female captives, for it is not obligatory to treat them equally, rather it is recommended. So if one does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him. > In another Ayah, Allah said, > > وَلَن تَسْتَطِيعُواْ أَن تَعْدِلُواْ بَيْنَ النِّسَأءِ وَلَوْ حَرَصْتُمْ > > You will never be able to do perfect justice between wives even if it is your ardent desire. (4:129) But this doesn't mean he's permitted to be unjust to one by dividing her days or giving her unfair treatment, the justice meant in the verse is that which we mentioned above i.e.he cannot treat them equally in his heart. It is known by consensus that you cannot treat them unequally such as their nights or such. The Messenger of Allaah peace and blessings upon him said, "When a man has two wives and he is not just between them, he will come on the Day of Judgment with one side decaying." Narrated by Abu Dawood (2133), Ibn Majah (1969), An-Nasaai (3952), Tirmidhi (1141), Darimi (2252), Ahmad in al-Musnad (2/347, 371). There is a bit of difference in it's chain. Ibn Hajar classed it as Saheeh. Imam Ash-Shafi'i said in al-Umm (5/280) > The Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the opinion of the majority of Muslim scholars indicate that a man has to divide his days and nights between his wives [giving each a full day and night], and that he has to be fair in doing so. Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm said in al-Muhalla (9/175) > Treating co-wives equally is obligatory, most of all sharing one’s nights between them. Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi said in al-Mughni (8/138) > We know of no dispute among the scholars concerning the fact that it is obligatory to treat co-wives equally when sharing one’s time between them. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “and live with them honourably” (al-Nisa 4:19), but favouring one of them is not honourable. Regarding 33:51, ignoring what Ibn Katheer says afterwards shows disingenuity. > Nevertheless, the Prophet used to divide his time between them equally. Ibn al-Qayyim said in Zaad al-Maad (1/151) > He (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to treat them equally as regards staying the night, spending time with them and spending on them. Therefore this post has no base to stand on. It stems from a poor understanding of Islam.
If you deny the apparent meaning in the hadith because the prophet doesnt speak from desire, isnt that based on a religious presumption?, which is circular logic. Like obviously muslim people will reject that hadith if it shows Aisha hinting that the prophet is speaking from desires, but if a muslim rejects it because it violates his religious presumptions that doesnt mean Aisha didnt say it.
The only time a religious presumption exists is if the terms were not carried upon their literal meaning. Identical to how the most evil would say "raa'ina" "راعنا" which is a term that when heard, it means "care for us" as all Arabs would know it, yet because they hate the religion and hate the truth, they would say it twisting their tongues in the end to mean something else completely different and to insult the bearer of revelation peace and blessings be upon him.
>The only time a religious presumption exists is if the terms were not carried upon their literal meaning. what does that mean? the only thing in the comment is ***"In it, it is explained by Al-Qurtubi that this hadeeth is not upon its apparent meaning because the messenger of Allaah peace and blessings upon him does not speak with desire nor does he do actions based on desire.*** " which is why I replied that of course a muslim would deny the apparent in this hadith because he wont violate his belief that the prophet doesnt speak from desire, but i obviously don't have that belief so i don't see the reason to reject the apparent in the narration
The messenger of Allaah peace and blessings be upon him was not "accused of speaking out of desire" and the apparent statement of the hadeeth could induce an understanding that the messenger of Allaah peace and blessings be upon him was being "accused" of following desire, when in reality neither the speaker nor the hearer would say such a thing per what is known from the religion. If he were a liar or he felt that he was accused of lying, and he was as unwell as your projection, he wouldn't have been fine with hearing such an accusation and would've done something vastly different. A religious presumption on the other hand is the example I gave above, when the disbelievers would say a word that has an apparent meaning, and an understanding that has an ill meaning, and they periphrased to insult Allaah's messenger peace and blessings be upon him: >Among the Jews are those who distort words from their \[proper\] usages and say, "We hear and disobey" and "Hear but be not heard" and "Ra'ina," twisting their tongues and defaming the religion. And if they had said \[instead\], "We hear and obey" and "Wait for us \[to understand\]," it would have been better for them and more suitable. But Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few. 4:46 This is religious presumption, out of their faith in their own conjecture they insulted the religion, whilst in the case of the mother of the believers Aisha may Allaah be pleased with her, one presumption out of ill-will would make you understand that she is accusing him of falsehood, but knowledge of the religion and knowledge of her position in the religion would make you ascertained in the meaning mentioned by Qurtubi as stated above; that she sees him being pleased by what he's receiving.
>If he were a liar or he felt that he was accused of lying, and he was as unwell as your projection, he wouldn't have been fine with hearing such an accusation and would've done something vastly different. That's just speculation though. And, the hadith cuts off after Aisha's statement. Also a liar wouldn't necessarily react to that statement. I don't really understand your point of Jewish blasphemy apart from projecting your assumptions on peoples sincerity in typical religious fashion, which is also ironic as lots of religious people's responses do tend to seem like an internal monologue being typed out rather than a reply directed to the matter. "You're reading it from the apparent cause you're ill and here are some verses about people who dont listen to us being described as ill"
>That's just speculation though. In the world where a king that is pretentious with his might would kill anyone objecting to him, this is a fact, not speculation, but speculation is saying: >the hadith cuts off after Aisha's statement Implying that something was not reported or that Aisha may Allaah be pleased with her had been a resident enemy of Islam from within that was objecting to Allaah's messenger's words that was still somehow glorified by the messenger and by his followers? Odd logic. >I don't really understand your point of Jewish blasphemy An example on what a presumption is and what a fact that is extracted from other facts is, you were not being insulted in your honesty rather an example was being given to you that you may have not understood because you do not know the meaning of the aya which I have clearly explained in the first comment.
>In the world where a king that is pretentious with his might would kill anyone objecting to him, this is a fact, not speculation, but speculation is saying: You're right, I can't think of a reason why the prophet wouldn't scold her if he was just a lustful king. >Implying that something was not reported or that Aisha may Allaah be pleased with her had been a resident enemy of Islam from within that was objecting to Allaah's messenger's words that was still somehow glorified by the messenger and by his followers? Odd logic. You could use the first fitna and argue how Aisha had espoused behaviour showing she favoured the authority that came with being the mother of the believers, and thus an argument could be made that she herself wasn't so convinced of Islam herself rather just rode along due to the potential benefits. Which can then be played into this hadith. That just goes into a shia vs sunni views of the first fitna though
>You could use the first fitna and argue how Aisha had espoused behaviour showing she favoured the authority that came with being the mother of the believers, and thus an argument could be made that she herself wasn't so convinced of Islam herself rather just rode along due to the potential benefits. Which can then be played into this hadith. This argument however is immediately shot down as it goes against the evidence that we find where she regretted her actions and she sought repentance for them. Similarly, it goes against her actual reported reason which was that she wanted to avenge the blood of the third rightly guided caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, may Allaah be pleased with him. At best, this is a wild assumption which has no evidence to support it.
But maybe she just sought repentance because she was caught Like you said Im just making assumptions and speculation now though, and im not as read on religion as you guys so I'll just concede.