Tafsir of Hud 11:46

"He said" is a discursive commencement, as if it were asked: "What did his Lord, Exalted is He, say to him when he called upon Him?"

It was said: He said, "O Noah, indeed he is not of your family." That is, he is not of them at all, for the axis of "family" (familial relationship) is religious kinship. This was severed by disbelief; thus, there is no relationship between a Muslim and a disbeliever, and for this reason, they do not inherit from one another. They have mentioned that the kinship of religion is closer than the kinship of lineage, as Abu Firas indicated with his saying: "Salman's affection for him was a lineage," and there was no kinship between Noah and his son. Or, [it means] "He is not of your family" whom I commanded you to carry in the Ark, because he was excluded from them by the exception. This is narrated from Ibn Jarir and Ikrimah, and the first [interpretation] is from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with both of them. According to both opinions, he is not among those whom He promised to save. It is as if, since his supplication—peace be upon him—reminding Him of His promise—Exalted is His remembrance—was predicated upon the assumption that Canaan was of his family, He first negated that he was of them, then He explained the reason for his not being of them, by way of an explanatory commencement, with His saying—Exalted is He: "Indeed, he is a deed other than righteous."

Its origin is "He is a possessor of a corrupt deed," but "possessor of" was deleted for hyperbole by making him the very deed itself due to his persistence in it. One should not supply the genitive noun (mudaf), for if one does, the intended hyperbole is lost. A parallel to this is the saying of Al-Khansa mourning her brother Sakhr: "No mother of a colt, over a skin stuffed with straw, laments it more—the nursing mothers have assisted her in lamentation—she grazes until, when she reaches [maturity], she is nothing but turning away and approaching; a day more painful when she parted from me, O Sakhr, and life has its sweetness and bitterness."

"Corrupt" was substituted with "other than righteous" either because "corrupt" might be applied to that which has become corrupted while its nature is righteousness, so it would not be definitive in a case that is purely corrupt, like acts of oppression; or it is to hint that the salvation of those who were saved was only due to their righteousness.

Al-Kisa'i and Ya'qub read: "Indeed, he acted [with] an unrighteous deed," in the form of the past tense verb, and the accusative case of "other than" (ghayra). This is the reading of Ali—may Allah ennoble his countenance—Ibn Abbas, Anas, and Aisha. She and Umm Salamah have narrated it from the Prophet—may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him. The root is "He acted [with] a deed [that was] unrighteous," and it has been read in this manner as well, as narrated from Ikrimah. The described noun was deleted, and its adjective was put in its place; this is common and standard when the meaning is clear and ambiguity is removed. Some have weakened it here by claiming that the Arabs would hardly say, "He acted [with] an unrighteous," but rather "He acted [with] a deed [that was] unrighteous," but that is nothing. This reading supports the view that the pronoun in "Indeed, he" in the first reading refers to Noah's son, because in this [second reading] it refers to him definitively. Therefore, what has been said—that it refers to [the act of] refusing to board with them and lagging behind them—is weakened, meaning "that refusal is an unrighteous deed." This is contrary to the apparent meaning in itself, as is not hidden. Similar to this is what was said: that it refers to Noah's calling out—peace be upon him—meaning "this calling out of yours is an unrighteous deed." This would exclude the sentence from being an explanation for what preceded it, the benefit of that [explanation] would be lost, and the discourse would not be consistent. Yes, something has been narrated from Ibn Abbas that implies this; Ibn Abi Hatim and Abu al-Shaykh extracted from him that he said: "The wives of the prophets—peace be upon them—do not commit adultery, and the meaning of the verse is: 'Your asking me, O Noah, is an unrighteous deed that I do not approve for you.'"

In a narration by Ibn Jarir from him: "Your asking [about] that of which you have no knowledge is an unrighteous deed." Perhaps this has not been proven from this report, for the apparent meaning of the first narration is that he only made the pronoun refer to the request, not to Noah's son, because that would imply attributing adultery to one to whom it cannot be attributed, and he—may Allah be pleased with him—was of a station too high for it to be hidden from him that this difficulty does not necessarily follow from that.

Then, since his supplication—peace be upon him—was predicated on Canaan being of his family, and He had negated that and confirmed it by explaining its cause, He derived from that the prohibition against asking for his salvation. However, the prohibition came in a general form that includes what was mentioned in a primary sense, so He—Exalted is He—said: "So do not ask Me," meaning: When you stand before the clarity of the situation, do not ask Me, "that of which you have no knowledge." That is, a request for which you do not know with certainty that its attainment is correct and in accordance with wisdom—in the case that "what" (ma) is an expression for the requested object, which is the object of the verb "ask"—or a request of which you do not know that it is correct—in the case that it is an expression for the verbal noun (masdar), which is an absolute object. Thus, the prohibition applies explicitly to both that which is known to be corrupt and that which is ambiguous. This was stated by Shaykh al-Islam. It is also permitted that "what" means [something] of which you do not have knowledge as to whether it is correct or not, which is the position taken by the Qadi. Thus, the prohibition would apply to the ambiguous, and the state of that which is known to be corrupt would be understood from it by way of priority (a fortiori). In any case, it is general, and what we are discussing is included under it, as we mentioned. The calling out was termed a "request" because it implies it, even if it was not explicitly stated, as is not hidden. And with it—based on what is reported from Abu Ali—either it is connected to that which the aforementioned "knowledge" points to, even if it does not govern it, like his saying: "I raised him until, when he became a man, my reward was to be beaten with a stick," or it relates to what is established in that. The same applies to the speech that will follow, if Allah wills.

The verse is manifest that his calling out—peace be upon him—was not an inquiry about the reason for his lack of salvation despite the existence of the cause of salvation in his view, as the Qadi permitted, based on it being after the drowning. Rather, it is a supplication from him—peace be upon him—for the salvation of his son when the waves came between them, and he did not yet know of his destruction, either by bringing him close to the Ark through the colliding waves, for example, or by bringing it close to him. It is said: Or by saving him through another means. But the mention of the promise in the supplication rejects this, for it is specific to salvation in the Ark. Mere being cut off by the waves does not necessitate destruction, let alone knowledge of it, for the possibility of Allah's protection of him by His mercy is apparent. He had promised him the salvation of his family, and he did not believe there was any obstacle to his being included in their order, because of his hypocrisy and lack of open proclamation of disbelief; for that would—in words—necessitate the need to invoke deletion and connection. The meaning of [the argument] that the prohibition is against inquiring about what one does not know is not in accordance with wisdom, for the lack of knowledge of a thing is an impetus to inquire about it, not to refrain from it.

It is said: The question about the cause of the lack of salvation, with the boldness and quasi-objection it contains, is flawed, for it was determined for him—peace be upon him—that he was among those excluded by his destruction; so it is not sound. How could it be otherwise, when that calling out of his is something from which supplication drips?

It is said: The prohibition is only against asking about that for which there is no need, either because it does not matter or because evidence had been established regarding his state, not against asking for the sake of guidance; so there is no harm, then, in the words of the Qadi. But it is as you see.

The perfumer cannot fix what time has corrupted.

Thus, the truth is that this was a matter of salvation, and it was before the realization of the drowning, upon seeing the proximity to it. He was not aware of his disbelief at that time because he was not openly proclaiming it; otherwise, he would not have prayed for him, but would have left him as well. "And do not be among the disbelievers" does not indicate that he was a disbeliever in his estimation; rather, it is a prohibition against entering into their midst, and he determined that this would necessitate drowning through demonstrative reasoning, as we have preceded. It is as if he—peace be upon him—interpreted his discourse as being free from stubbornness and obstinacy due to the overwhelming nature of his love and a distraction from giving contemplation its due. Therefore, he requested what he requested, so he was admonished that someone like him, in the position of guidance and performing the duties of the call for that long period, should not have the speech of the seeker of guidance and the obstinate one confused for him. This returns to the "abandonment of the better" (tark al-awla), and this is what is meant by His—Exalted is He—saying: "Indeed, I advise you, lest you be among the ignorant."

Shaykh al-Islam mentioned that his isolation and intention to seek refuge in the mountain is not an explicit text for persistence in disbelief, due to the apparent possibility that this was because of his ignorance of the fact that salvation was limited to the Ark, and his belief that the mountain also served the same purpose, or because of his dislike for being confined in the Ark. Rather, his saying, "I will take refuge in a mountain that will protect me from the water," after Noah had said to him, "And do not be among the disbelievers," perhaps gave Noah—peace be upon him—hope in his faith, since he did not say, "I will be with them," or "We will take refuge," or "It will protect us." For his singling out of his own self in attributing the two actions mentioned perhaps suggests his separation from the disbelievers and his isolation from them, and his compliance with some of what Noah—peace be upon him—had commanded him to do. However, had he—peace be upon him—contemplated his affair as it truly ought to be contemplated and examined his conditions in all that he approached and left, it would not have been confused for him that he was not a believer and that he was excluded from his family. For this reason, it was said to him: "Indeed, I..." etc. This is manifest that the axis of the admonition is due to his confusion, as we mentioned.

Al-Zamakhshari took this view, saying: Allah—Exalted is He—gave him the promise of the salvation of his family with the exception of those for whom the word had previously passed, so he should have believed that there was, among the group, someone who was deserving of punishment for being unrighteous, and that all of them were not necessarily saved. And that no doubt should have addressed him when his son was on the verge of drowning—that he was from the excluded, not from those excluded from [the exception]. So he was admonished because he confused what ought not to be confused. It is as if he meant that the exception indicated that the meaning considered [for salvation] is righteousness, not kinship, so he should have made that the principle and examined the family for its existence, and made them all equal in the desert of punishment, except for the one whose righteousness and faith were known, not that he should have made his being of the family a principle, then asked for his salvation while in doubt about his faith. He fell short in what was expected of him, with some shortcoming, and the resolute ones are held accountable for the smallest of things, and the good deeds of the righteous are the bad deeds of those near to God.

Ibn al-Munir was not satisfied with this being an admonition. He said: In the words of Al-Zamakhshari is that which indicates that he believes Noah—peace be upon him—did that which necessitated the attribution of ignorance to him and admonishing him for that, and the matter is not as he imagined. Then he said: And we clarify that the truth in the verse is removed from its literal sense while exonerating Noah—peace be upon him—from what Al-Zamakhshari imagined to attribute to him. We say: When he was promised the salvation of his family except for those of them for whom the word had passed, and he was not one who uncovered the state of his son, nor was he aware of the inner aspect of his affair, but was rather believing in the apparent state that he was a believer, he remained holding to the generality of the family-kinship that was established. No certainty of his son's disbelief opposed it, so that he would be removed from the "family" and enter into the "excluded." Thus, he asked Allah—Exalted is He—regarding him based on that, so He clarified to him that in His knowledge he was among the excluded, and that he himself had no knowledge of that, which is why he asked regarding him. This—as an establishment of an excuse—is more appropriate than it being an admonition, for Allah—Exalted is He—does not hold Noah—peace be upon him—accountable for knowledge of that which He has kept as a matter of the Unseen. As for His saying—Exalted is He—"Indeed, I advise you," etc., the intent is the prohibition against the occurrence of the request in the future, after Allah—Exalted is He—had made him know the inner aspect of his affair, and that if he were to ask in the future, he would be among the ignorant. The purpose of this is to present that which keeps him—peace be upon him—on the path of infallibility, and advice does not necessitate the occurrence of a sin; rather, the intent of it is that the sin does not occur in the future. For this reason...