Ala-Maududi
(66:4) If the two of you turn in repentance to Allah (that is better for you), for the hearts ofboth of you have swerved from the Straight Path.[7] But if you support one anotheragainst the Prophet,[8] then surely Allah is his Protector; and after that Gabrieland all righteous believers and the angels are all his supporters.[9]
7. The word saghat in the original is from saghy which means to swerve and to become crooked.Shah Waliyullah and Shah Rafiuddin have translated this sentence thus: Crooked have become yourhearts. Abdullah bin Masud, Abdullah bin Abbas, Sufyan Thauri and Dahhak have given this meaningof it: Your hearts have swerved from the right path. Imam Razi explains it thus: Your heartshave swerved from what is right, and the right implies the right of the Prophet (peace be uponhim). And Allama Alusis commentary is although it is incumbent on you that you should approvewhat the Messenger (peace be upon him) approves and disapprove what he disapproves, yet in thismatter your hearts have swerved from conformity with him and turned in opposition to him.
8. The word tazahur means to cooperate mutually in opposition to another person, or to be unitedagainst another person. Shah Waliyullah has translated this sentence, thus: If you mutually jointogether to cause distress to the Prophet. Shah Abdul Qadir’s translation is: If you bothoverwhelm him. Ashraf Ali Thanwi’s translation says: And if you both continued to work thusagainst the Prophet. And Shabbir Ahmad Uthmami has explained it thus: If you two continued towork and behave thus (against the Prophet, peace be upon him).
The verse is clearly addressed to two ladies and the context shows that these ladies are fromamong the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him) for in – verses 1-5 of this Surah – theaffairs concerning the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) wives only have been discussedcontinuously, and this becomes obvious from the style of the Quran itself. As for the questionwho were the wives, and what was the matter which caused Allah’s displeasure, the details arefound in the Hadith. In Musnad Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and Nasai, a detailed traditionof Abdullah bin Abbas has been related, which describes the incident with some variation inwording. Ibn Abbas says:
I had been thinking for long time to ask Umar as to who were the two of the Prophet’s (peace beupon him) wives, who had joined each other against him, and about whom Allah sent down thisverse: In tatuba…..; but I could not muster courage because of his awe-inspiring personalityuntil he left for Hajj and I accompanied him. On our way back while helping him to performablutions for the Prayer at one place I had an opportunity to ask him this question. He replied:they were Aishah and Hafsah. Then he began to relate the background, saying: We, the people ofQuraish, were used to keeping our women folk under strict control. Then, when we came toAl-Madinah, we found that the people here were under the control of their wives, and the womenof Quraish too started learning the same thing from them. One day when I became angry with mywife, I was amazed to see that she argued with me. I felt badly about her conduct. She said: Whyshould you feel so angry at my behavior. By God, the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him)answer him back face to face, (the word in the original is li yuraji nahu) and some one of themremains angrily apart from him for the whole day. (According to Bukhari: the Prophet, peace beupon him, remains angry and apart from her the whole day). Hearing this I came out of my houseand went to Hafsah (who was Umar’s daughter and the Prophet’s, peace be upon him, wife). I askedher: Do you answer back to the Prophet (peace be upon him) face to face? She said: Yes. I asked:And does one of you remain apart from him for the whole day, (according to Bukhari: the HolyProphet remains angry and apart from her for the entire day). She said: Yes. I said: Wretched isthe one from among you, who behaves thus. Has one of you become so fearless of this that Allahshould afflict her with His wrath because of the wrath of His Prophet (peace be upon him) andshe should perish, So, do not be rude to the Prophet (peace be upon him). Here also the wordsare: la turaji-i, nor demand of him anything, but demand of me whatever you desire. Do not bemisled by this that your neighbor (i.e. Aishah) is more beautiful and dearer to the Prophet(peace be upon him). After this I left her house and went to the house of Umm Salamah, who wasrelated to me, and talked to her on this subject. She said: Son of Khattab, you are a strangeman: you have meddled in every matter until you are now interfering in the affair betweenAllah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) and his wives. She discouraged me. Then it so happenedthat an Ansari neighbor came to my house at night and he called out to me. We used to sit in theProphet’s (peace be upon him) assembly by turns and each used to pass on to the other the newsof the day of his turn. It was the time when we were apprehending an attack by the Ghassanidsany time. On his call when I came out of my house, he said that something of grave significancehad happened. I said: Have the Ghassanids launched an attack? He said: No, but something evenmore serious. The Prophet (peace be upon him) has divorced his wives. I said: Doomed is Hafsah(the words in Bukhari are: Raghima anfu Hafsah wa Aishah). I already had a premonition of this.
We have left out what happened after this, how next morning Umar went before the Prophet (peacebe upon him) and tried to appease his anger. We have described this incident by combining thetraditions of Musnad Ahmad and Bukhari. In this the word murajat which Umar has used cannot betaken in its literal sense, but the context shows that the word has been used in the sense ofanswering back face to face and Umar’s saying to his daughter: La turaji-i Rasul Allah clearlyhas the meaning: Do not be impudent to the Messenger of Allah.
Some people say that this is a wrong translation, and their objection is: Although it is correctto translate murajaat as answering back, or answering back face to face, yet it is not correctto translate it as being impudent. These objectors do not understand that if a person of a lowerrank or position answers back or retorts to a person of a higher rank and position, or answershim back face to face this very thing is described as impudence. For example, if a fatherrebukes his son for something or feels angry at his behavior, and the son instead of keepingquiet or offering an excuse, answers back promptly, this could only be described as impudence.Then, when the matter is not between a father and a son, but between the Messenger (peace beupon him) of Allah and an individual of his community, only a foolish person could say that itwas not impudence. Some other people regard this translation of ours as disrespectful, whereasit could be disrespectful in case we had had the boldness to use such words in respect of Hafsahfrom ourselves. We have only given the correct meaning of the words of Umar, and these words hehad used while scolding and reproving his daughter for her error. Describing it as disrespectfulwould mean that either the father should treat his daughter with due respect and reverence evenwhen scolding and rebuking her or else the translator should render his rebuke and reproof in away as to make it sound respectful and reverent.
Here, what needs to be considered carefully is that if it was such an ordinary and trivial matterthat when the Prophet (peace be upon him) said something to his wives they would retort to Him,why was it given so much importance that in the Quran Allah administered a severe warningdirectly to the wives themselves? And why did Umar take it as such a grave matter that first hereproved his own daughter, then visited the house of the other wives and asked them to fear thewrath of Allah? And, above all, was the Prophet (peace be upon him) also so sensitive that hewould take offense at minor things and become annoyed with his wives, and was he, God forbid, soirritable that once having been annoyed at such things he had severed his connections with allhis wives and retired to his private apartment in seclusion? If a person considers thesequestions deeply, he will inevitably have to adopt one of the two views in the explanation ofthese verse