Tafsir of Hud 11:31

(And I do not say to you that I possess the treasuries of Allah) – This is the commencement—as stated by more than one scholar—of refuting the doubts they raised in detail. It is a scattered exposition (nashr mushawwash) made in reliance upon the hearer’s intelligence. According to the scholar Al-Tibi, the intervening passage between their doubts and the answer serves as an introduction and a preamble to the reply. He explained that the statement, (O my people, have you considered: if I am upon a clear evidence from my Lord and He has given me a mercy from Himself), is a confirmation of his prophethood. It means: "I did not say to you (that I am a clear warner to you, that you should not worship except Allah) except based on evidence for the confirmation of my prophethood and the validity of my call. Yet, it was hidden and obscured from you, until you brought forth those frail doubts." Furthermore, his intent in what he claimed was only guidance, and he did not covet wealth, such that he would cling to the wealthy among them and drive away the poor. You are ignorant of this intent when you say: "Drive away the poor," while Allah Almighty sent him only to encourage the seeking of the Hereafter and the rejection of this world. (Then who would help me if I oppose what I have brought?)

In Al-Kashf, it is stated that the verse (Have you considered...) is a summary response to all the doubts, expressing that they do not return to even the slightest contemplation. His saying (And O my people, I do not ask you...) is a completion of the expression and an incitement toward the longing he has for what he possesses. His saying (I am not one to drive away...) is an explicit answer to what they implied in their saying (And we do not see that you are followed except by those who are the lowest of us), regarding the baseness of his companions and that, were it not for their status, following him might have been possible. This is an expression of his steadfastness in his position and that what he brings and keeps them from is based on a proof from Allah, the Exalted, that reaches him. How could he exchange the clear, bright truth for vacillating falsehood? Then, he began the detailed answer with his words (And I do not say), etc. This is better than what Al-Tibi mentioned.

They considered this a rebuttal to their statement (And we do not see in you...) etc., as if he were saying: "If your non-adherence and denial of me is due to your negation of me possessing the bounty of wealth and status, then I have not claimed it. I did not say to you that the treasuries of Allah’s provision and His wealth are with me, such that you should dispute with me regarding it and deny it. My claim was only that of a messenger supported by miracles." Perhaps his response, peace be upon him, regarding this—insofar as he is concerned—is followed by a response regarding those who followed him, peace be upon him. To make it a response to their statement (We do not see you but a human like us), as Al-Tabarsi suggested, is of no substance. The interpretation of "treasuries" as we have indicated is what is relied upon.

Al-Juba’i and Abu Muslim said: "The meaning is the things in Allah’s power; i.e., I do not say to you, when I claim prophethood, that the things in Allah’s power are with me, so I may do what I wish, give what I wish, and withhold what I wish." This is of no substance. Similar, or rather worse and more bitter, is the statement of Ibn al-Anbari: "The meaning is the unseen matters of Allah and what is concealed from creation." Ibn al-Khazin made this sentence a conjunction to (I do not ask you...) etc. In his view, the meaning is: "I do not ask of you wealth for it, nor do I say to you that with me are the treasuries of Allah, which nothing can deplete, so that I would call you to follow me for them in order to give you from them."

(And I do not know the unseen) is a conjunction to (the treasuries of Allah are with me), which is the speech being quoted. He mentioned negation with it, even though the conjunction to the object of a negated verb is also negated without needing a negation particle, to emphasize the previous negation and recall it, and to ward off the possibility that he might not say this combination, which would not contradict his saying one of them. That is, "I do not say I know the unseen, so that you would accuse me of lying due to the improbability of that." What I mentioned of claiming prophethood and warning of punishment is only by revelation and information from Allah, the Exalted, supported by evidence. The unseen is what has not been revealed and for which no proof has been established. Perhaps he, peace be upon him, did not negate the claim of knowing the unseen in the same way he did in the previous and subsequent points as an exaggeration in negating this attribute, of which no one except Allah has any share at all. It is permissible for it to be a conjunction to (I do not say), meaning: "I do not say that to you, nor do I claim knowledge of the unseen in my saying that I am a clear warner, that I fear for you the punishment of a painful day, so that you should hasten to denial and improbability."

It is said: It is a conjunction to this or that, except that the meaning is "I do not know the unseen, so that I would know that these people followed me at first glance without insight or firmness of heart." His situation is not hidden. The first interpretation was objected to by saying it is not suitable for the context. Then it was said: "It is apparent that when he, peace be upon him, claimed prophethood, they asked him about the unseen and said to him: 'If you are truthful, inform us of it.' He replied: 'I claim prophethood by a sign from my Lord, and I do not know the unseen except by His, the Exalted's, information.' It is not required that this be mentioned in the noble text, just as the request to drive them away is likewise." This is finished. In this, there is the thought that the claim of non-suitability is not as it should be. Also, it is not hidden that there is no evidence indicating its occurrence as an answer when it is not mentioned. As for the request to drive them away, disdain is evidence for it in general, and some of the predecessors have explicitly stated it. Similar to that is not said based on opinion.

(And I do not say, 'I am an angel') is a rebuttal to their statement (We do not see in you but a human like us). That is, "I do not say, in order to promote what I claim of prophethood, that I am an angel, so that you should say that to me and deny me." For humanity is not one of the obstacles to prophethood, but rather one of its prerequisites. Meaning, as it is said: "You have taken the lack of these three things as a pretext to deny me, while I do not claim any of that, nor that which relates to any of it. What I do claim relates to the virtues by which the degrees of humans differ." It is said: By this, he meant "I do not say I am a spiritual being not created from male and female; rather, I am a human like you, so there is no meaning in your refuting me by saying (We do not see in you but a human like us)." According to both interpretations, there is no proof in it that angels are better than the prophets, peace be upon them, contrary to those who used it as evidence and made it a separate statement not a rebuttal to what they said previously, which has no basis. So, contemplate.

(And I do not say to those whom your eyes despise)—that is, whom you hold in contempt. The origin is taztari with a ta’, but it was changed to a dal to harmonize with the zay in voicing, as it is one of the unvoiced letters. The origin of izdira’ is defamation; it is said, "He izdara-hu" if he defamed him. The expression in the present tense is for continuity or to narrate the state, because the defamation has already occurred. Attributing it to the "eyes" is a metaphor for exaggeration in looking, as it is an attribution to a sense from which the defamation of someone is not conceived; so it is as if the one who does not perceive that, perceives it. It is also to alert that they held them in contempt at first sight, and by what they witnessed of the shabbiness of their state and their lack of acquisition, without reflection or contemplation of their meanings and perfections. The referent of the relative pronoun is omitted, as we have indicated, and the lam is for purpose, not for notification, otherwise it would have been said later "gives them," meaning: "I do not say, out of helping you and yielding to your desires regarding those among the believers whom you have deemed base and held in contempt for their poverty, (that Allah will give them no good)" in this world or in the Hereafter. For perhaps Allah, the Exalted, will give them the good of both abodes.

(Allah knows best what is in their souls) of that which they prepare themselves for the giving of that. In Irshad al-'Aql al-Salim, it is stated that this is a direction for conjoining the negation of this statement—which is neither something the disbelievers reject nor something they imagine he would utter—to the negation of those former statements, which they do reject and imagine he would utter. This is because both negations are a rebuttal to their false analogy to which they clung previously. For they claimed that prophethood entails the mentioned matters: claiming angelhood, knowledge of the unseen, and possessing the treasuries, and that finding their place and seizing their spoils is not the habit of the lowly. He answered by negating all of that, as if he said: "I do not say the existence of those things is a requirement of prophethood, nor is the absence of wealth and status an obstacle to good." He, peace be upon him, limited himself to negating the mentioned statement, despite being certain that Allah, the Exalted, will give them great good in both abodes and that they are in firm certainty of faith, proceeding on the path of fairness with the people, satisfying himself with opposing their speech, and guiding them to the path of guidance, that it is appropriate for everyone not to state something unless they know it with certainty and build their affairs on apparent evidence, and not to be reckless regarding what they have no proof for. This is finished. You know that he, peace be upon him, had stated the success of these people in his words (And I am not one to drive away those who have believed; they will meet their Lord), based on the fact that they are the ones intended by "those who have believed," and that the meaning of their being "those who will meet their Lord" is that they are brought near in the Divine Presence, as stated by more than one. The same judgment applies if the intended meaning of the relative pronoun is anyone who possesses the title of the connection absolutely, as they enter into it primarily, since what was requested, explicitly or implicitly, was to drive them away. Perhaps the certainty at one time and its absence at another is due to the requirements of the context.

In Al-Bahr, it is stated that the meaning of (And I do not say to those), etc., is: "Your holding them in contempt does not diminish their reward with Allah, the Exalted, nor does it invalidate their wages. I do not judge them with any of this; the judgment for that belongs to the One who knows what is in their souls, so He will reward them for it." It is said: This is a rebuttal to their saying (And we do not see that you are followed), etc., to the effect of: "I do not judge them that they have no good, due to your thinking about them that their inner states are not like their outer states; Allah knows best what is in their souls." This is finished, and what is in it is not hidden.

Abu al-Shaykh narrated from Al-Suddi that he interpreted "good" as faith; i.e., "I do not say to those whom your eyes despise that Allah will not give them faith." It was problematic because the apparent meaning is that the relative pronoun refers to those lowly followers, and they are believers in their view, so there is no meaning in negating the statement that Allah will give them faith, as a help to them and a yielding to their desires. It was answered that the intended meaning of this faith is that which counts and does not vanish at all, as indicated by expressing it as "good." They only affirmed their following at first glance and intended by that that they believed a faith with no stability. This is made a rebuttal to that statement, and "will not give them" is intended to mean "what He gave them." It is as if they said: "They followed you and believed in you without reflection, and such faith is in the process of vanishing, so they will not remain on it and will apostatize." So he answered them: "I do not judge those people that Allah, the Exalted, has not given them faith that does not vanish and that they will apostatize, as you claimed." His saying, (Allah knows best what is in their souls), is a delegation of the judgment for that to Him, the Exalted, or an indication of the greatness of the faith that Allah, the Exalted, gave them, as when it is said: "Allah, the Exalted, knows best what Zayd is enduring from 'Amr," when what he is enduring from him is a great matter that cannot be explained. It is as if it were said: "Their faith is of great value and noble status, so how could I say that Allah, the Exalted, will not give them firm faith?" In this is a straining and an excessive interpretation, and Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

Carrying the description to people who are very lowly, other than those, and who have not believed yet—that is, "I do not say to those whom your eyes despise and have not believed yet, that Allah, the Exalted, will not grant them success for faith," since they were in the utmost state of shabbiness and baseness that you claim prevents good—(Allah knows best what is in their souls) of that which qualifies them for the overflow of success upon them. This is the pivot for that, not the apparent states, which I do not speak about.

(Indeed, I would then)—that is, if I said that—(be among the wrongdoers).

(In belittling their rank and diminishing their rights, or among those who wrong their own souls by that.) In it is an implication that they are wrongdoers in their holding them in contempt and deeming them base. It is permissible that if I said anything of what was mentioned—the possession of the treasuries, claiming knowledge of the unseen, angelhood, and the negation of Allah giving those people good—and the people, due to their increased ignorance, needed to be reasoned with regarding the former statements by the necessity of being included in the group of wrongdoers.