Tafsir of Hud 11:42

Regarding His statement, Exalted be He: "And it sailed with them amidst waves like mountains," there are three interpretations:

First, that it is an isti'naf (a new, independent sentence). Second, that it is a hal (state/circumstantial clause) referring to the implicit pronoun in "In the name of Allah" (Bismillahi), meaning: Its sailing was established "In the name of Allah," in a state of being in motion. Third, that it is a hal from a deleted element indicated by the context, meaning: "They embarked upon it, while it was sailing." The fa (in the original text) is intended for conjunction. "With them" (bihim) is connected to "sailing" (tajri) or to a deleted term, i.e., "associated with them." The imperfect tense is used to recount the past event. There is no sense in making it a hal from the implicit pronoun in the first interpretation, as is obvious.

"Waves" (al-mawju) refers to what rises from the water when it is agitated; its singular form is mawja. "Like mountains" is in the position of an adjective for "waves," meaning waves that are high, varying in height, and piled up. It is said: It sailed with them amidst such waves, and there remained six cubits of it above the water. This sailing has been deemed problematic given the report that the water covered everything between the heavens and the earth, and that the ship was sailing inside it like a fish. The response is that the report is baseless, and reason almost rejects it. Yes, Ibn Abi Shaybah, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Asakir, and Abd ibn Humayd narrated through Mujahid from Ubayd ibn Umayr that he said: "The water rose above the top of every mountain by fifteen cubits." Even if we accept the accuracy of what was mentioned, this sailing occurred at the beginning of the affair before the calamity intensified, as indicated by His statement: "And Noah called out to his son," for such a dialogue is only conceivable before the connection between the ship and the land was severed, as that is when the exchange between Noah (peace be upon him) and his son—the negotiation, the invitation to the ship, and the response of seeking refuge in the mountain—could take place.

Some researchers have said: This call took place before embarking on the ship, and the waw (conjunction) does not necessarily imply sequence. It is narrated from Ali (may God honor his countenance) that he read it as "ibnaha" (his daughter/woman), considering the feminine pronoun to refer to his wife. His attribution to her implies that he was a stepson, for attribution to the mother while mentioning the father is contrary to the obvious, even if they permit it. It is explained that he was attributed to her because he was a disbeliever like her. As for what is said—that he was illegitimate due to His statement "So they both betrayed them"—committing such a grave, unfathomable act is impossible, for God Most High has purified the Prophets (peace be upon them) from what is far less than that in terms of deficiency by vast degrees. Far be it from them, and again far be it from them, to be pointed at by the finger of slander. The intended meaning of "betrayal" is betrayal in religion. Attributing this view to al-Hasan and Mujahid, as claimed by al-Tabarsi, is an explicit lie.

Muhammad ibn Ali and Urwah ibn al-Zubayr (may God be pleased with them) read it as ibnah (with an open ha and no alif), sufficeing with the alif for it; this is a dialect, as Ibn Atiyyah said. Among examples of this is the saying: "Would you lead a sheep with it and eat it, or would you sell it in some of the saddles?" It is said: This is weak in Arabic, to the extent that some restricted it to necessity. The pronoun also refers to the mother. Ibn Abbas read it ibnah with a quiescent ha; this is, according to Ibn Atiyyah and Abu al-Fadl al-Razi, a dialect of the Azd, for they make the pronoun ha in the masculine quiescent. An example is the verse: "My mounts are longing for him, they keep me awake." It is also said to be a dialect of the tribes of Banu Kilab and Uqayl. Some grammarians restrict this quiescence to necessity, reciting: "I drink the water, my thirst for him is not quenched, except because his eyes are the flood of his valley."

Al-Suddi read ibnaha with an alif and a quiescent ha, explaining it as a nudba (lamentation). This is challenged by the fact that grammarians explicitly stated the particle of nida (calling) is not dropped in nudba. The answer is that this is a narration, and what they prohibited was the nudba itself, not the narration of it. Ibn Atiyyah reports abnaha with a hamzah of qat (the hamzah used for nida). The objection to this is that the mandub (lamented) is not called with the hamzah, that the report with wasl therein and calling with the hamzah did not occur in the Quran, and that the view of it being a nudba is remote because it does not suit the invitation to the ship. If it were said that ibnaha in this reading is also an object of "called," as in other readings, and that the alif is for ishba (lengthening) and the quiescent ha is the pronoun ha in some dialects, then there would be no problem regarding the meaning, which is evident. Yes, asserting this depends on hearing it in similar contexts; whenever it is proven, the derivation of the reading—if accurate—is determined for me.

The majority read ibnahu (his son), attributed to the pronoun of Noah, and connected the ha with a waw. The tanwin of "Noah" is kasrah for the majority to avoid the meeting of two quiescent sounds. Waki read it with a damma, following the inflectional movement. Abu Hatim said: "It is a poor dialect, unknown."

"And he was in a place of isolation" (fi ma'zil), meaning a place where he isolated himself from his father, his brothers, and those who believed from his people. The intent is his distance from them, either physically or conceptually; the result of which is his opposition to them in religion. Ma'zil with a kasrah is a noun of place for isolation, whether real or metaphorical. It may also be a noun of time. If it were read with a fatha, it would be a masdar (verbal noun). It is said: The intent is that he was isolated from the disbelievers, having separated from them, and Noah (peace be upon him) thought he wanted to distance himself from them, which is why he called him to the ship. It is also said: He called him only because he was a hypocrite, so Noah thought he was a believer. This was chosen by many researchers, such as al-Maturidi and others. It is also said: He knew he was a disbeliever at that time, but he (peace be upon him) thought that upon witnessing those horrors and the flood reaching its peak, he would be deterred from his state and accept faith. It is also said: He did not ascertain his inclusion in the exception because it was like a generality, so the compassion of fatherhood compelled him to call him.

Yabni (O my son) with a fatha on the ya (the lam of the word), sufficeing with the fatha for the alif substituted for the pronoun ya in "ya bunayya." It is said: It dropped because it met a quiescent letter with the ra (in irka) that follows. The first is supported by its being read that way where there is no quiescent letter following. Some people have said there is weakness in it, according to what Yunus reported regarding the weakness of "ya aba" and "ya ama" by dropping the alif and sufficeing with the fatha. The majority read it with a kasrah, restricting it to the ya of the pronoun. It is said: It was dropped because of the meeting of two quiescent sounds, as was said regarding the alif. Calling him with the diminutive is a matter of tenderness and affection, and a father often calls his child thus.

"Embark with us," that is, in the ship. Due to its presence and to signal the distress of the situation, where the intensity of the struggle hindered speech—and because the "with us" rendered mentioning it unnecessary—it was not mentioned. "Embarking" (al-ruku) and the light ba (in irka) and its assimilation into the mim are two canonical readings; the reason for assimilation is the proximity of their points of articulation. "And do not be with the disbelievers" is an emphasis on the command; it is a prohibition against living with the disbelievers and entering into their affairs, and it is a decisive declaration that entering into it necessitates drowning, based on a demonstrative path.