Tafsir of At-Tahreem 66:10

The setting forth of an example in a context such as this refers to the presentation of a strange state in order to make known another state that shares with it an equivalent strangeness. That is to say, Allah the Exalted has made the state of the disbelievers, both in their condition and their outcome, an example. "An example" (mathalan) is the second object of the verb "sets forth" (daraba), and the "li" (for) is connected to it.

His saying, "the wife of Noah" (her name is said to be Wā‘ilah), and "the wife of Lot" (her name is said to be Wāhilah, and it is also said to be Wālihah; according to Muqātil, the name of Noah’s wife was Wālihah, and the name of Lot’s wife was Wā‘ilah)—the first object of the verb was deferred so that what serves as an explanation and interpretation of their condition could be attached to it, thereby clarifying the state of the disbelievers. The intended meaning is: Allah the Exalted set forth as an example for the state of those [disbelievers], the state of "the wife of..." etc.

His saying, "they were under two of Our righteous servants," is an explanation of their state, which should have invited them toward goodness and righteousness. It does not say "under them both" (tahtahuma) out of reverence; rather, it means they were under the protection of two prophets of great stature, fully capable of obtaining the good of this world and the Hereafter and securing their happiness.

His saying, "but they betrayed them" is a clarification of the great betrayal that proceeded from them, despite the reality of what contradicted it—their companionship with the Prophet, peace be upon him. As for the betrayal of the wife of Noah, peace be upon him, she would say to the people: "He is a madman." As for the betrayal of the wife of Lot, she would signal [the presence of] guests [to those who sought to commit lewd acts]. A group has narrated this, and Al-Hakim authenticated it via Ibn Abbas. Ibn ‘Adi, Al-Bayhaqi in Shu’ab al-Iman, and Ibn ‘Asakir narrated from Al-Dahhak that he said: "Their betrayal was backbiting." In another version, it is completed by saying: "Whenever Allah the Exalted revealed something, they would disclose it to the polytheists." Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Ibn Jurayj that he said: "Their betrayal was that they were disbelievers, opposing them." It is also said: "They were hypocrites."

Al-Raghib said: "Betrayal (khiyanah) and hypocrisy (nifaq) are one and the same, except that betrayal is spoken of with regard to covenants and trusts, while hypocrisy is spoken of with regard to religion. Then they intermingle. Betrayal is the opposition to truth by violating a covenant in secret, and its opposite is trustworthiness (amanah)." One should interpret what is in the verse based on this, and it should not be interpreted here as immorality (fujur—sexual infidelity), because many have narrated from Ibn Abbas: "No wife of a prophet ever committed adultery," and Ashras raised this [narration] to the Prophet, peace be upon him. In Al-Kashshaf, it states: "It is not permissible that adultery be intended, because it is repugnant by nature and a disgrace to everyone, unlike disbelief, for they [the disbelievers] do not deem disbelief repugnant and instead call it the truth."

Ibn ‘Atiyyah quoted some as interpreting it as disbelief, adultery, and other things. By my life, almost no one would say such a thing except one who is a child of adultery. Therefore, the truth as I see it is that the unchastity of wives is like the unchastity of mothers—it is one of those repulsive things that Al-Sa’d said the Truth [Allah] has prevented with regard to the prophets, peace be upon them. What is attributed to the Shia regarding this in relation to the Master of the Prophets, peace be upon him, is a lie against them, so do not rely upon it.

It was common, and in this—as it is said—is a depiction of the state of the two wives, which mimics the state of the disbelievers in their betrayal of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, through disbelief and disobedience, despite their full capacity for faith and obedience.

His saying, "So they availed them naught against Allah..." is an explanation of what their betrayal led to. That is, those two righteous servants and two great prophets did not avail them—by right of marriage—"against Allah," meaning against His torment, the Almighty and Exalted. "Naught" refers to nothing of benefit or nothing of the torment. It was said to them at the time of their death or on the Day of Resurrection—and the past tense is used to signify the certainty of the occurrence—"Enter the Fire with those who enter."

That is, with the rest of the entrants from among the disbelievers who have no connection between them and the prophets, peace be upon them.

Many have mentioned that the intention is to point out that disbelievers will be punished for their disbelief and no regard will be given to the connection that existed between them and the Prophet, peace be upon him. In this, there is an allusion to the Mothers of the Believers and a warning to them that being under the marriage of the Prophet, peace be upon him, will not benefit them if they commit what has been forbidden to them. There is nothing in this that indicates that any of them were disbelievers or hypocrites, as claimed by Yusuf al-Awali, one of the later Imamiyyah. Glory be to You, this is a great slander!

Mubashshir ibn ‘Ubayd read it as taghniya (with the ta prefix) meaning "to be sufficient," and "an them" (‘anhuma) in his reading implies "from themselves." Abu Hayyan said: "This implied addition is necessary, unless 'an' is treated as a noun, as in the phrase 'leave aside' (da‘ ‘anka), because if it were a particle, it would involve the transfer of the verb that elevates the attached pronoun to its own genitive pronoun, and it functions in the position of a pronoun, which is not permissible." There is a discussion to be had on this.