Tafsir of Hud 11:47

He [Noah], peace be upon him, complied with that and sought refuge in Allah, the Exalted, from falling into what he had been forbidden from, as indicated by His, the Exalted, saying: “He said, ‘My Lord, I seek refuge in You from asking of You that of which I have no knowledge.’”

The view that this [the request] was due to a lapse on his part—as you have come to know—is extremely contrary to the apparent meaning. It has been reported from Fudayl ibn ‘Iyad that he said: "It has reached me that Noah, peace be upon him, wept for forty days following the words God, the Exalted, spoke to him." Ahmad recorded in al-Zuhd from Wuhayb ibn al-Ward al-Hadrami who said: "When God, the Exalted, reproached Noah regarding his son and sent down to him, ‘Indeed, I advise you,’ he wept for three hundred years until there were channels beneath his eyes from the weeping."

Al-Wahidi conjectured that the request was made before the drowning and while he was aware of his [son's] disbelief, and that Noah, peace be upon him, did not know that his requesting his Lord for the salvation of his son was forbidden for him, despite his persistence in disbelief, until God informed him of that. This is countered by the argument that if he were aware of his disbelief while clearly stating that among his family were those who deserved punishment, then seeking his salvation would have been an abomination among abominations. Reflect upon this.

The apparent interpretation, according to what we have established, is that his saying, “My Lord...” etc., is a repentance for what had proceeded from him, peace be upon him. The expression here is a reference either to the "request" or the "act of asking"—meaning: "I seek refuge in You from requesting from You hereafter any matter of which I do not know if its attainment is in accordance with wisdom, or any request of which I do not know if it is correct—whether its corruption is known, or its state is ambiguous, or I simply do not know if it is correct or incorrect." He did not say "I seek refuge in You from it" or "from that," as an intensification of his repentance and to demonstrate his desire and eagerness for it, and to seek blessing by reciting what God, the Exalted, had taught him. This is more eloquent than saying "I repent to You from asking You," for it contains an indication that such an action is a momentous, perilous affair from which there is no escape except by seeking refuge in God, the Exalted, and that his ability, peace be upon him, is insufficient to escape calamities except through that, as is stated in Irshad al-‘Aql al-Salim.

The possibility that this contains a refutation and negation—similar to the statement of Moses, peace be upon him, in al-Baqarah: “I seek refuge in Allah from being among the ignorant”—is something that would hardly cross the mind of any of the ignorant.

Furthermore, in the codex of Ibn Mas‘ud [it is written]: "Indeed, he is a deed not righteous that you ask Me." This strengthens the view that the pronoun in "indeed" (innahu) in the canonical reading refers to the calling which contained the request. Ibn Kathir read fala tas’alanni with a fathah on the lam and a doubled, fatha-vowelled nun; this is also the reading of Ibn ‘Abbas, may God be pleased with them both. Nafi‘ and Ibn ‘Amir read similarly, except that they voweled the [doubled] nun with a kasrah, on the basis that its origin was tas’alanni (tas’alanni), then the protective nun was dropped due to the gathering of the nuns, and the doubled nun was given a kasrah for the ya’, then the ya’ was dropped as the kasrah was deemed sufficient. Abu Ja‘far, Shaybah, and Zayd ibn ‘Ali, may God be pleased with them, read it the same way, except that they retained the ya’ after the nun, and its command is apparent. Al-Hasan and Ibn Abi Mulaykah read tas’alanni without a hamzah, from sala yasalu, which is a common dialect. The remaining seven readers read it with a hamzah, a sukun on the lam, a kasrah on the nun, and a shortening [of the nun]. Warsh and Abu ‘Amr retained the ya’ in wasl (connection), while the others dropped it.

“And unless You forgive me”—for what has proceeded from me regarding the aforementioned request—“and have mercy upon me”—by accepting my repentance—“I will be among the losers.”

The postponement of the mention of this [supplication and repentance] from the narration of the command issued to the earth and the sky and what follows it—despite the fact that it should rightly be mentioned immediately after His, the Exalted, saying: “And he was among the drowned,” just as it occurred in reality—is said to be for the sake of following the style of the story of the Cow in its respective chapter, to indicate that this meaning stands independently as a purpose. This is because it contains the subtle point that the kinship of faith overrides the kinship of lineage, and that one should not proceed in foundational religious matters except after certainty. This is countered by the distinction between what is here and what is there for those who possess an insightful heart. Moreover, what was mentioned regarding the kinship of faith overriding the kinship of lineage is not lost even if the discourse were presented in chronological order.

Some investigators have chosen that this is because the mention of this calling, as you see, necessitates the aforementioned response, which necessitates the mention of his repentance, peace be upon him, which leads to the mention of its acceptance in the context of the command for his descent, peace be upon him, from the Ark with peace and blessings overflowing upon him and upon the believers, as will come later, if God, the Exalted, wills. There is no doubt that these meanings are intertwined, such that one can hardly separate the noble verses containing them from one another, and that this is only completed with the completion of the story, which is only completed with the end of the flood. Therefore, the situation necessitated mentioning its completion before this calling, and that only occurs upon mentioning that Canaan was among the drowned. Because of this subtle point, the placement of the eloquent brevity has increased in excellence. It holds another benefit, which is the clear declaration of his destruction from the very beginning. Had the calling been mentioned after “And he was among the drowned,” one might have imagined, from the beginning until the verse “He is not of your family” etc., that he might be saved by his [Noah's] invocation. Thus, He declared his destruction, then mentioned the story in a way that silenced the most eloquent of the eloquent. Then He said, addressing what occurred in the midst of that, which took place between Noah, peace be upon him, and the Lord of Might, whose wisdom is majestic and whose word is exalted.