Tafsir of Hud 11:54-55

(We say naught but that some of our gods have afflicted you with evil) Meaning, they have befallen you—derived from ‘ara-ya‘ru-hu, and its root is from i‘tara-hu in the sense of intending, as in "he visited his ‘ara," meaning his place and vicinity. By "evil," they—may Allah slay them—intended madness. The "ba" (in bi-su’) is for causation, and the indefiniteness is said to be for belittlement, as if they did not exaggerate in their insolence, as indicated by attributing this to only some of their gods rather than all of them. Others say it is for intensification, signaling that what he said could only proceed from someone afflicted with much evil, as an exaggeration of his departure from the canons of reason. The mention of "some" is to exalt the status of their gods, implying that some possess an influence which others do not.

The sentence is the content of the utterance, and the "illa" (except) is pleonastic because the exception is mufarragh (unrestricted). The root is: "We say a saying, save this saying of ours." Thus, the mustathna minhu (exception from) is omitted, the excepted "saying" is omitted, and its content is elevated to its place. Alternatively, "a‘traka" (has afflicted you) is the exception because the intent is the word itself; thus, there is no need to estimate a "saying" after "illa," and it is not a case where the sentence is excepted. The meaning is: "Some of our gods have corrupted your intellect because you insulted them, turned [the people] away from their worship, and lowered them from the rank of divinity through what you previously said: 'You have no god other than Him; you are only fabricators.'"

Their purpose in this, as has been said, is to explain the reason for what proceeded from Hud (peace be upon him) after they had already mentioned their lack of attention to his words. It is also said that this serves to confirm their previous statement: "And we will not forsake our gods because of your word," etc. Their belief that he was as they described—and he is far above that—necessitates disregarding his words and counting them among superstitions, to say nothing of believing in them or acting according to them. They mean: "We do not believe your speech to be anything but the ravings of madmen, which cannot possibly be true; so how could we believe in it and act according to its demands?"

They pursued a path of opposition and obstinacy toward a progression from bad to worse: first, by reporting that he brought no clear proof, despite the possibility that what he brought was an argument in itself, even if not clearly indicative of the intent. Second, by refusing to comply with his words—saying, "We will not forsake our gods because of your word"—despite the possibility that this could have been achieved by believing him. Then, they negated their belief in him by saying, "And we are not believers in you," despite his speech being something worthy of belief. Then, they negated that rank from him as well by saying what they said—may Allah slay them—how are they deluded!

There is room for discussion here. Perhaps the inclusion of this sentence without a conjunctive particle—unlike the previous two—supports the view that it is not intended for emphasis like the others. Yes, its containment of a confirmation of what preceded is undeniable, so reflect.

(He said: "I call Allah to witness, and you witness, that I am free from what you associate [with Him] (54)) Meaning, from that which you set up as a partner, while He, glory be to Him, did not make it a partner nor did He send down any authority for it. "Ma" is relative, and "min dunihi" (other than Him) relates to "tushrikun" (you associate), not a state of its subject; meaning: "You associate, overstepping Allah in this judgment." There is no benefit in restricting it [to the subject]. It is also permitted that it be an infinitive, meaning "from your associating." Zamakhshari permitted both possibilities, saying: "That is, from your associating gods other than Him, or from what you associate as gods other than Him." The manner of the prepositional phrase's attachment in both cases is the same. The estimation of "gods" is for clarifying the meaning and indicating that the object is intended by the flow of discourse. It is not appropriate for the phrase to be an adjective for it under both interpretations, because the clarification of their sum total is achieved in a manner similar to what we mentioned in clarifying the sum of the first—this only stands if the aforementioned [element] is attached, and the meaning is not "gods other than Allah" according to that interpretation. Tibi has an opposing view, but it is not significant.

"Wa anni bari’un" (And that I am free) is a point of contention for the two preceding verbs. Differing [transitive] particles may contend for a noun that is capable of being acted upon by them, as you say: "I gave and granted Zayd a dirham," just as an intransitive and a transitive [verb] contend, such as qama (he stood) and darabtu (I hit) Zayd.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) responded to their abominable claim—founded upon the belief that their gods cause harm and benefit—with this. Since his previous action regarding them—that they were devoid of divinity—occurred within the context of commanding the worship of Allah and dedicating it to Him, and since this burdened them and they considered it a stain upon them, causing them to claim what they claimed, he (peace be upon him) declared the truth and proclaimed it openly. He announced his ancient dissociation from them using a nominal sentence beginning with Anna, and he emphasized this with "I call Allah to witness," for it acts like an oath in conveying emphasis. He commanded them to hear this and bear witness to it. The intent behind this is disdain and mockery, as a man says to his adversary when he does not care for him: "Bear witness that I say such-and-such to you." It is as if he differentiated between the two testimonies for that reason. Conjoining the performative to the informative is permissible according to some, and those who do not permit it estimate a "saying," meaning: "And I say: Bear witness." It is also possible that his calling Allah to witness is a performative act, even if it is in the form of an informative one; in that case, there is neither a "said" nor "saying." It is also possible that his calling them to witness is a factual establishment of the argument against them; he turned away from the informative form to differentiate between the two addresses, so it is informative in meaning, as is famous in the first. But it is better to carry it to the metaphorical.

Then he commanded them to assemble and mobilize all their gods—not just some of them, as their phrase "some of our gods" implies—and to cooperate in bringing harm upon him. He forbade them from delaying or procrastinating, saying: (So plot against me all together; then do not grant me respite (55))

Meaning: If what you hinted at—that your gods have the power to harm those who disparage them or turn away from their worship—is true, even if only by implication, then I am free from them. So be you and them all together, and set about your plotting against me, and do not spare me or show me indulgence in that. The "Fa" (so) is for deriving the command from their claim of their gods' power over what they mentioned, and from the dissociation—both of them. The address is to the people and their gods. It is understood from the words of some that it is to the people only, and in this is a rejection of their gods' power to harm him through a demonstrative path; for if the mighty and strong ones could not manage to harm him despite their assembly and mobilization, then the incapacity of inanimate objects to do so is known a fortiori.

In any case, this is one of the greatest miracles, based on what has been said: that he (peace be upon him) was alone among a gathering of tyrants and despots, thirsty for the shedding of his blood, aiming at him from a single bow. Yet he addressed them as he did, belittled them and their gods, and provoked them as he provoked them, and they could not put into effect anything of what they had vowed. Their incapacity was made clearly manifest, and in this is an indication of his increased trust in Allah Almighty, the perfection of His care for him, and his protection. He confirmed this by demonstrating reliance upon the One who sufficed him against their harm in his saying...