🎯 QSP 1.0 Judgment Report — C10

Target Verse: Quran Surah 66:1 Core Text: "O Prophet, why do you prohibit (Haram) for yourself what Allah has made lawful (Halal) for you, seeking the approval of your wives?"

Phase 1: 6-Stage Fixed Audit Loop

Step 1. Primitive Contradiction Scan

Confirmation: One of the cores of Islamic doctrine is the infallibility of the Prophet (Ismah, that Muhammad does not commit sins or fatal mistakes). However, Surah 66:1 is a verse that fossilized as a record on the Eternal Tablet (the Preserved Tablet) the fact that the Prophet personally prohibited (Haram) what the omnipotent God (Allah) had permitted (Halal) while walking on eggshells around 'his wives (petticoat power/private desire)'.

Step 2. Orthodox Islamic Commentator/Shield Scan

Steps 3~6. Summary of Shield Reverse-Utilization and Contradiction Fusion

• Reverse-Utilization of Minor Mistake Theory: Though dismissed as 'minor', changing Halal into Haram is a 1st-class capital crime (Shirk) of usurping Allah's legislative authority. If the Prophet committed this, his infallibility (D-07/Ismah) becomes doctrinally bankrupt.
• Reverse-Utilization of Education Model Theory: If a soap opera where the Prophet violates God's law was engraved onto the 'Mahfuz Tablet' since before eternity for the purpose of educating the people, it is a lack of dignity and a blasphemy where the sacred Tablet becomes a script for Muhammad's domestic intrigue play.
• Zero-Sum Completion: If Muhammad's behavior is defended, Allah's law system (D-01/D-08) is degraded to trivial human affairs; if Allah's rebuke is emphasized, Muhammad's absolute prophetic infallibility (D-07) is shattered to pieces.

Phase 2: Complete Branching Case Tree (Up to 4 Stages)

📌 Primitive Contradiction:
   Muhammad, the absolute subject of Prophetic Infallibility (Ismah),
   arbitrarily changed God's permission (Halal) into Haram to avoid jealousy/conflict among his wives — an ultra vires act.

│
├─ Case 1: [Prophetic Humanity/Admission of Mistake] — Muhammad is human, so he occasionally makes small mistakes
│   │
│   ├─ Sub-Case 1-A: Admitting a mistake and partially giving up Infallibility (Ismah)
│   │   ├─ Sub-Sub-Case 1-A-i: If downplaying it as a "minor mistake"
│   │   │   └─ 💥 [D-01] Overlooking the severity of encroaching on Allah's legislative sovereignty (Shirk)
│   │   │         — Changing Halal/Haram is a usurpation of legislative authority under Quranic law. It cannot be downplayed.
│   │   └─ Sub-Sub-Case 1-A-ii: The moment a fatal mistake is admitted
│   │       └─ 💥 [D-07] Total dismantling of Ismah (Prophetic Infallibility)
│   │             — The Prophet clashing with God's law for private motives causes him to lose his qualification as a lifelong model
│   │
│   └─ Sub-Case 1-B: If re-defending that every action of the Prophet is a product of revelation
│       ├─ Sub-Sub-Case 1-B-i: Were arguing with his wife and making an oath also controlled by revelation?
│       │   └─ 💥 [D-08] Dismantling of Allah's Dignity and Narrative Structure (D-11)
│       │         — A 3rd-class script where cosmic Allah directed a mistake performance for Muhammad's harem peace
│       │
├─ Case 2: [Simple Oath, Not Haram] — Not a legal change of Sharia, just a commitment like "I won't eat honey"
│   │
│   ├─ Sub-Case 2-A: Making excuses of private preference
│   │   ├─ Sub-Sub-Case 2-A-i: Was the entire Surah 66 revealed and fossilized on the Tablet eternally because of a commitment not to eat honey?
│   │   │   └─ 💥 [D-06] Dismantling of the Integrity/Transcendence of the Preserved Tablet
│   │   │         — As if Allah stopped the entire universe and intervened personally just to settle a minor domestic squabble
│   │   └─ Sub-Sub-Case 2-A-ii: The original text critiquing "what Allah has permitted" carries the weight of a legal domain (Halal)
│   │       └─ 💥 [D-13] Incongruence of Clarity
│   │             — Misusing the legislative term 'Permission/Halal' for a simple project matter
│       
├─ Case 3: [Manifestation of People's Education] — To teach believers the regulation of breaking an oath (Connection to 66:2)
│   │
│   └─ Sub-Case 3-A: Used as a guinea pig in an educational process
│       └─ Sub-Sub-Case 3-A-i: Did the Prophet necessarily have to commit sinfulness/error for the education of breaking an oath (66:2)?
│           └─ 💥 [D-09] Collapse of Nubuwwah (Prophet exemplary clause)
│                 — It is contradictory to put forward the Messenger as a model of fall for God's law, which could be revealed without sin

Phase 2 Supplement: Comprehensive Zero-Sum Judgment Table

Phase 3: Final Logical Deconstruction Verdict

[QSP 1.0 Final Logical Deconstruction Verdict — C10]

The defense mechanisms of [Admission of a small mistake] and [Trivializing/Educational manifestation Theory of a simple private oath] that the opposing side attempted to protect the 'Prophetic Ultra Vires Incident' of Surah 66:1 have returned as the most powerful snares (Snares) miserably dismantling the foundations of [D-07] Prophetic Ismah (Infallibility) and the holiness of the Eternal Preserved Tablet, which is [D-06] Quranic Integrity/Transcendence, corresponding to the spine of the Islamic 15 core doctrinal system.

As proven by the above case tree, trying to defend Muhammad's domestic intrigue as a 'light mistake' relegates him to a usurper of power (Shirk) who trampled on God's legislation; whereas packaging it as God's deep lawmaking (education) causes the holy and eternal Quranic Tablet to drop to a 'lower-level domestic court record' meant to settle an Arabian tribal chief's harem jealousy. It is a perfect Zero-Sum game tribunal. Checkmate.