Tafsir of Hud 11:27

Both verbs are from the visual sight, and "a human" and "followed you" are states of the object, with an implied qad (for emphasis) in the second or without it, according to the disagreement. It is also permissible that they are from the sight of the heart (intellectual perception), which is the apparent meaning; in which case they are the second object. The connection of the "opinion" in the first is to the equality, not to the humanity alone.

It is understood from al-Kashshaf that there are two aspects to the verse:

1. They intended to insinuate that they were more entitled to prophethood, as if they said: "Grant that you are like us in virtue and merit regarding wealth and prestige, so why were you singled out for prophethood instead of us?"
2. They intended that a messenger ought to be an angel, not a human. This has been critiqued as containing a hidden i’tizal (Mu'tazilite thought), which the scholar al-Tayyibi clarified and which was disputed. In al-Kashf, it is stated that their saying "like us" is a justification for establishing humanity, and their saying "and we do not see that you are followed" etc., is a deduction that they are weak-minded and lack discrimination, so they allowed that a messenger could be a human. Their later saying, {وَمَا نَرَىٰ لَكُمْ عَلَيْنَا مِن فَضْلٍ}, is a registration that the claim of prophethood is invalid, for including him (peace be upon him) and the "lowest" in the string of those who lack merit, rather than [it being] an escalation. There is no hidden i’tizal in this speech, nor is the context concerned with it.

In al-Intisaf, it is suggested that they may have intended both aspects together, as if they said: "It is the right of the messenger to be an angel, not a human; and you are a human. Even if it were permissible for the messenger to be a human, we are more entitled to the message than you." His reply, {وَلَا أَقُولُ إِنِّي مَلَكٌ}, bears witness to their first intention, and {وَمَا نَرَىٰ لَكُمْ} etc., bears witness to their second.

The apparent meaning is that their intent is nothing but to establish that he (peace be upon him) is like them, and that there is no merit in him upon which prophethood and the obligation of obedience and following could be based. Perhaps their saying {وَمَا نَرَاكَ اتَّبَعَكَ} etc., is a response to what is retorted against them—that he (peace be upon him) is not like them, since he was followed by those who were granted success in following him. It is as if they said: "The following of those who followed you does not distinguish you such that it necessitates our following you, because you were not followed by {إِلَّا الَّذِينَ هُمْ أَرَاذِلُنَا}."

That is: our base ones and our inferiors. It is the plural of ar-radhal. The most common and analogical form in such cases—if one desires to pluralize it as a sound plural—would be like al-akhsarun (the losers), the plural of akhsar (loser); however, it was broken here because it came to function as a noun through prevalence. Therefore, it is stated in al-Qamus that ar-radhl and al-aradhal have the same meaning, which is the base and the despicable. The meaning of its functioning as a noun is that the described is rarely mentioned with it, like al-abtah and al-abraq. It is permitted that it is the plural of ar-radhal, which is a plural of a plural. Similar to that are akalib and kilab. Its being the plural of radhl is contrary to analogy. They did not say "except our aradhil" (pluralized soundly) as an exaggeration in deeming them base. It seems they deemed them base only due to their poverty, because when they did not know except the apparent of the life of this world, the most noble according to them was the one with the largest share of it, and the lowest was the one deprived of it. They did not understand that the entire world is not worth the wing of a gnat to Allah Almighty, that true bliss is the bliss of the hereafter, and that the noble is the one who attains it, while the lowest is the one who is deprived of it. Similar people in ignorance are many among the people of this age—may Allah Almighty save us from the desertion and deprivation they are in. The people, according to some reports, were weavers, cobblers, and cuppers.

By their saying {بَادِيَ الرَّأْيِ}, they intended the apparent meaning, which is what happens without depth. Ra’y (opinion) is from the sight of thought and reflection. It is said: [It is] from the sight of the eye, but that is not strong. It is permitted that al-badi means "the first," and on the first interpretation it is from al-badw, and on the second from al-bad’, with the ya replacing the hamza because of the kasra before it. Abu ‘Amr and ‘Isa al-Thaqafi read it as such. Its accusative case in both readings is as an adverbial of time for "followed you," in the sense of: "They followed you in the apparent view of their opinion," or "in their first [opinion]," and they did not contemplate and did not verify; had they done so, they would not have followed you. Their goal by this is to exaggerate the non-consideration of that following. Some made this the reason for them being base, but that is nothing. It is said: The meaning is that they followed you in their first opinion or its appearance, and they are not with you in the hidden [truth].

This connection is problematic, for what is before illa does not act upon what is after it unless it is the one excluded from (e.g., ma qama illa zaydun al-qawm), or the excluded (e.g., ja’a al-qawm illa zaydan), or a follower of the one excluded from. {بَادِيَ الرَّأْيِ} is not one of these three. The answer is that this is forgiven in the adverbial, because that which is not wide in others is wide in it. The issue of adverbiality is also problematic because fa’il (active participle) is not an adverb in origin. Makki said: "It is only permissible for fa’il to be an adverb just as it is for fa’il (the intensive form), like qarib and mali’, because of its annexation to ar-ra’y." It is often annexed to the verbal noun which is allowed to be accusative as an adverbial, such as jahdu ra’yi annaka muntaliqun.

Al-Zamakhshari said—and others followed him—that the original meaning is "at the time of the occurrence of their first matter," or "at the time of the occurrence of their apparent opinion," then that was deleted and the annexed-to took its place. Perhaps the estimation of "time" is to be a deputy for the adverb so that it is in the accusative as an adverb. The consideration of "occurrence" is based on the fact that the active participle does not represent the adverb to be in the accusative, while the verbal noun does so often. Thus, they pointed out by mentioning it that it contains the meaning of occurrence in its two senses, so it was permissible for it. It is not their intent that it is deleted, as there is no necessity for that in meaning under the two interpretations. What they mentioned here, that attributes do not represent the adverb except fa’il, is from the strange benefits as al-Shihab said, but he corrected it by prohibiting it because fa’il has frequently occurred as an adverb just like fa’il, such as khariju al-dar, batinu al-amr, and zahiruhu, and other than that which is frequent in their speech.

It is said: It is an adverb for "we see you," i.e., "We do not see you in our first opinion, or in what appears of it." It is said: For "our lowest," meaning they are base in the first consideration or its appearance, because their baseness is exposed and does not require contemplation. It is said: It is an adjective for "a human." It is said: It is in the accusative as a state of the pronoun of Nuh in {اتَّبَعَكَ}, i.e., "And you are of exposed opinion, lacking in soundness." It is said: It is in the accusative as a vocative for Nuh (peace be upon him), i.e., "O Badi al-Ra’y (you whose opinion is apparent)," meaning what is in your soul of opinion is apparent to everyone. It is said: It is a verbal noun on the scale of fa’il, accusative as an absolute object, and its factor is what preceded it upon the assumption of adverbiality.

It is said: This is a confirmation of what was understood first. It is said: The address is to his followers (peace be upon him) only, so it is a shift, i.e., "We do not see for you any honor over us in that following such that we should agree with you in it." And carrying "merit" to mean favor and beneficence in the two possibilities of address is based on the idea that the intent of the nobles in their response to him (peace be upon him) when he called them to what he called them, is: "We will not follow you and we will not abandon what we are upon because of your saying, because you are a human like us, lacking what calls for your prophethood and your being a messenger of Allah Almighty to us, and your followers are base who followed you without contemplation or verification, so their following does not prove that you possess what calls for that, which is hidden from us. Moreover, you are not a possessor of favor over us such that your favor would be a caller for us to agree with you, whatever state you are in, nor are your followers possessors of favor over us such that we should agree with them, even if they are base, [in order to] observe the right of favor. For a human might agree with a base person due to his favor and not care about his being base because of that—[something] which revolves in the mind, though the heart has reservations about it. Rather, we think you are liars."