Hud: ( 87 ) They said, "O Shu'ayb..."

They replied with this to his peace be upon him commanding them to worship Allah the Exalted alone, which implied forbidding them from the worship of idols. Their intent was to deny the revelation that gave the command, but they exaggerated in this to the point where they denied that there was any rational commander at all, claiming that such commands were products of delusion and madness—may Allah the Exalted slay them, how they are deluded! Upon this, they built their interrogation and articulated their speech, saying by way of mockery: "Does your prayer," which is a result of delusion and the actions of the insane, "command you that we should leave what our fathers continued to worship generation after generation," of idols and images?

They characterized him (peace be upon him) as being "commanded," despite the fact that what proceeded from him was only the command to worship Allah the Exalted and other religious laws, because he (peace be upon him) did not command them on his own authority but by way of revelation, and he used to inform them that he was commanded to convey it to them. Their specifying the attribution of the command to "prayer" among all the other ordinances of prophethood is because he (peace be upon him) was one who prayed frequently and was known for it. Indeed, Ibn 'Asakir narrated from al-Ahnaf that he (peace be upon him) was the most prayerful of the prophets, and when they saw him praying, they would wink at one another and laugh; thus, among the rites of religion, it was a laughingstock to them. It is also said that this is because he (peace be upon him) used to pray and tell them: "Prayer commands good and forbids indecency and evil." This is narrated from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), and more than one scholar holds the first view. This attribution is real, not metaphorical; the furthest that can be said is that they intended the literal meaning in jest.

The selection of the imperfect tense (tashurruka) is to signify generality with respect to time. His saying (the Exalted): "that we should leave" is on the estimate of "with the assignment to leave." The genitive (the word "assignment" or taklif) was deleted, so the preposition entered upon "that" (an), then it was deleted. Its deletion before it is consistent, and the custom of discourse in such cases dictates it. It is also said that the impetus for this is that a person is not assigned the action of another, for it is not within his capacity at all. Others said there is no estimation, and the meaning is: "Does your prayer command you to do what is not in your capacity and charge, of the actions of others?" Their intent in this was to insinuate the weakness of his intellect—far be it from him (peace be upon him)—and to mock him from that perspective. This is countered by the fact that the entry of the interrogative hamza upon the command itself forbids this, and it would necessitate that there be issued from him (peace be upon him) during the call something that indicates or suggests this, and how could that be? So contemplate this.

Most of the seven readers read "prayers" (salawatika) in the plural, and the matter of reconciling the two readings is easy. His saying (the Exalted): "or that we should do with our wealth what we wish," they replied with this to his (peace be upon him) command to fulfill rights and his prohibition against cheating and reduction. It is a conjunction to "what" (ma), and "or" (aw) is in the sense of "and" (wa), meaning: "And that we should leave our doing what we wish with our wealth, of fraudulent measuring and otherwise." It is not correct to link it to "that we should leave" because the meaning becomes impossible; for it would then mean "it commands you to do with our wealth what we wish, of fraudulent measuring and otherwise," while they are forbidden from that, not commanded to do it. Interpreting "what" (ma) according to what we indicated is the manifest view. It is said: They used to cut/clip gold and silver coins and circulate them with the sound ones by way of deception, so they were forbidden from that, and they said what they said. This is narrated from Muhammad ibn Ka'b. Some included this action under "corruption in the earth," so the prohibition against it is a prohibition against that, and there is no obstacle to its inclusion under the generality of "what" (ma).

Ad-Dahhak ibn Qays, Ibn Abi 'Abla, and Zayd ibn 'Ali read with the ta in the two verbs, in the second person, so the conjunction is to the object of "commands you," meaning: "Does your prayer command you to do with our wealth what you wish," i.e., of fulfilling the measure and the scale, as is apparent. It is also said: "of Zakat," for he (peace be upon him) used to command them with it, as is narrated from Sufyan al-Thawri. It is said that in this verse, while holding prayer to what is commonly understood from it, there is evidence that in his (peace be upon him) law there was prayer and Zakat. This is supported by what is narrated from al-Hasan, who said: "Allah the Exalted did not send a prophet but that He prescribed for him prayer and Zakat." You know that interpreting "what you wish" as Zakat is not certain; rather, it is contrary to the apparent context. Interpreting "prayer" as such, even if it is apparent, Ibn al-Mundhir and others narrated from al-A'mash its interpretation as "recitation," and it is transmitted from others its interpretation as "supplication," which is the linguistic meaning of it. From Abu Muslim, it is interpreted as "the religion," because it is one of his most important matters. On the assumption that prayer is intended in the other sense, the verse does not prove more than that he (peace be upon him) had a prayer; it does not prove that it is one of the matters assigned to any of his nation, so it is possible that it was one of his (peace be upon him) specificities. What is narrated from al-Hasan is not definitive in the intent, as is not hidden. It is allowed that the conjunction be on the reading of "what" (ma), but this is countered by the fact that it requires the "leaving" to be carried in two different meanings, and it is not left to what is understood from it. Abu 'Abd al-Rahman and Talha read with the nun in the first and the ta in the second, and the conjunction is to the object of "commands you," and the meaning is manifest from what has preceded. "Indeed, you are the forbearing, the rightly guided."

They described him (peace be upon him) with these two noble attributes by way of ironic metaphor; the intended meaning is the opposite of their literal meanings. This is what is narrated from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), and Qatada and al-Mubarrad held this view. It is allowed that they described him with that based on their assumption, and the sentence is an explanation for what preceded of their finding what they mentioned far-fetched, as if they said: "How do you charge us with what you charge us with, while you are the 'forbearing, the rightly guided' in your own estimation?" It is also said: It is permissible that it be an explanation remaining upon its literal meaning, based on the fact that he (peace be upon him) was described among them as having forbearance and guidance, and that—in their estimation—this was an obstacle to the issuance of what issued from him (peace be upon him). The first is favored as being more appropriate to what precedes it, because it is also ironic. The latter is favored in that the speech in such a case would be similar to what passed in the story of Salih (peace be upon him) from their saying to him: "You were among us a hope before this," and following it with what was followed with, as contained in his saying (the Exalted): "He said, 'O my people, have you considered if I am upon a clear evidence from my Lord...'" and He provided me from Himself (the Exalted) a "good provision," which is prophethood and wisdom. This is indicated by it, and the answer to it is of the category of "slackening the reins." The summarized speech is as if he (peace be upon him) said: "You spoke the truth in what you said, that I have never ceased to be a guide for you and forbearing among you. But what I have brought is nothing other than guidance and counsel for you. Look with the eye of fairness, while you are intelligent: If I am upon a clear argument and certainty from my Lord, and I am a prophet in truth, is it proper for me, while I am your guide and counselor, not to command you to leave idols and refrain from sins? And prophets are not sent except for that." Then, he (peace be upon him) emphasized the meaning of guidance and included the meaning of forbearance in what will come of his speech. This is how the scholar al-Tayyibi established it.

Shaykh al-Islam chose the view that it is not remaining upon its literal sense, because the context of mockery forbids it. He mentioned (may his secret be sanctified) that what is meant by "evidence" and "good provision" is prophethood and wisdom, and that expressing them as such is to alert that—despite them being evidence—it is a "good provision." How not, for it is the foundation of the eternal life for him (peace be upon him) and his nation; and that this speech from him (peace be upon him) is a refutation of their atrocious statement, which contained the claim that his command and prohibition had no basis. Then he said: "The answer to the condition is deleted, indicated by the import of the speech: i.e., 'Do you say?' The meaning is: You counted what issued from me of commands and prohibitions as being of the type that no rational person would utter, and you placed it among the decrees of delusion and madness, and you mocked me and my actions and said what you said. So tell me: if I am, from the side of my Lord and the Owner of my affairs, firmly upon prophethood and wisdom, behind which there is no limit for perfection and no ambition for the ambitious, and He provided me for that a good provision—do you say regarding my affair and the affair of my actions what you say, of which there is no good or evil beyond it?" He claimed that this is the answer that the context demands and the noble structure supports.

Al-Qadi interpreted the "good provision" as what Allah the Exalted gave him of lawful wealth. The meaning of it being from Him (the Exalted) is that it is from His presence (the Exalted) and by His aid without toil in its attainment. He estimated the answer to the condition as: "Can it be that with this bestowal, which gathers spiritual and physical happiness, I could betray His revelation and oppose Him in His command and prohibition?" He mentioned that this speech from him (peace be upon him) is an apology for what they denied of him changing what was familiar and prohibiting the religion of the fathers. Some estimated it as what the scholar al-Tayyibi estimated.

Shaykh al-Islam claimed that those two estimations are far from what the context demands, and that they are only suitable if their speech is interpreted literally and "prayer" is intended as "religion," as transmitted from Abu Muslim and 'Ata'. The "good provision" according to that would be only what Allah the Exalted gave him of the lawful, as is narrated from ad-Dahhak. The meaning then would be: "Tell me, if I am a prophet from Allah the Exalted and He provided me lawful wealth by which I am independent of the worlds, is it proper that I oppose His command or agree with you in what you do and what you leave?" The end.

I say: It is not hidden that what is appropriate for the context is to interpret the "good provision" as what Allah the Exalted gave him of the lawful, free from cheating and reduction. Estimating the answer to the condition as something like what al-Qadi estimated is not something the speech resists, and it does not depend on interpreting the speech literally and "prayer" as "religion." Rather, such an estimation is feasible even if the speech is by way of mockery and "prayer" is in the commonly understood sense. It is as if it were said: "They—may Allah the Exalted slay them—when they said what they said in the shadows of misguidance and said what they said regarding their prophet and what proceeded from him of actions, had no purpose but to leave the invitation and for him to leave them to what they do." He (peace be upon him) did not explicitly address the refutation of their statement which contained casting him—far be it from him—with delusion, madness, foolishness, and misguidance, as an indication that such is not worthy of an answer due to the manifest nature of its falsehood. He addressed their answer regarding what they intended by their speech, in which there is a cutting off of their greed from the beginning, while pointing to the refutation of what their atrocious statement contained. It is as if he (peace be upon him) said to them: "O my people, you have been bold in this atrocious statement and included in it what is manifestly false, with the intention that I leave you and your affair of idol worship and the reduction of the measure and the scale. So tell me, if I am a prophet from Allah the Exalted and, being provided with lawful wealth, I am independent of you and others, is it proper for me to oppose His revelation and agree with your desires? That shall not be from me at all. Therefore, there is no benefit for you in this atrocious speech." It is perhaps said: In this answer there is an indication of describing them in a way similar to how they described him (peace be upon him), as if he said: "Your requesting me to leave the invitation and agree with desire, while I am commanded to invite you and am independent of you, is something that does not issue from a rational person and is not perpetrated except by a foolish, misguided one." It is as if the exposure to mentioning the "provision" along with "being upon evidence" is to indicate the existence of the requirement and the removal of what is thought to be an obstacle. The beauty of articulating the answer in this manner is not hidden. So contemplate.

It remains that what the grammarians mentioned, according to what Abu Hayyan said in such speech—I mean "have you considered if I am"—is to estimate the interrogative sentence as being in the place of the second object of "have you considered," which includes the meaning of "tell me" (which takes two objects). The second is usually an interrogative sentence, and the answer to the condition is what the previous sentence with its dependencies indicates. The estimation is: "If I am upon evidence from my Lord, then tell me, can it be that I..." etc. So understand and do not be heedless.

by my forbidding you from what I forbid you from, of reduction and cheating, ( that I should differ from you to what I forbid you from, ) i.e., that I should intend it after you have turned away from it, so I would monopolize it to the exclusion of you, as is the habit of some people in forbidding certain matters. It is said: "He differed from me to such-and-such" (khalafani) if he intends it while you have turned away from it, and "he differed from me from it" (khalafani 'anhu) if he turns away from it while you intend it. Al-Bahr says: "The apparent view, as they mentioned, is that 'that I should differ from you' is in the place of the direct object for 'I intend,' i.e., 'and I do not intend my differing from you,' and 'khalafa' is in the sense of 'khala' (to follow or be behind), like 'jawaza' and 'jaza.' The meaning is: 'I do not intend to be a successor/replacement to you,' and 'to what' is attached to 'differ' or to a deleted [prepositional phrase], i.e., 'inclining toward what I forbid you from.'" It is said: In the speech, there is a deleted verb conjoined to the mentioned one, i.e., "and I incline toward..." etc. It is permissible for "differ" to remain upon its apparent meaning of "opposition," and "that" and what follows are in the place of the direct object of "intend," and "inclining toward" is estimated as previously mentioned. Or "that" and what follows are in the place of the object for whose sake (causal), and "to what" is attached to "intend," i.e., "and I do not intend for the sake of opposing you to commit what I forbid you from." Al-Zajjaj said regarding the meaning of this: "i.e., I do not intend, by my opposing you, to commit what I forbid you from."

i.e., I do not intend by what I say to you, ( only reform, ) i.e., except that I reform you with counsel and admonition as much as I am able, i.e., for the duration of my ability for that and my capacity for it; I do not spare any effort in it. "What" (ma) is an infinitive-adverbial. It is permissible for it to be a relative pronoun, a substitution for "reform," i.e., "the amount which I was able," or "except reform," (the reform of what I was able). It is either a substitution of part for whole, because what is understood from reform is what one can afford. It is said: A substitution of inclusion. According to this and the first, a pronoun is estimated, i.e., "thereof," because in such cases it is necessary. It is also permissible for it to be a direct object of the mentioned infinitive, like his saying: "Weak in striking his enemies, he imagines flight to be delaying the appointed time." i.e., I do not intend except to reform what I was able to reform of your corruption. The most eloquent and apparent is what we have presented, because the possibility of substitution involves ellipsis and the loss of hyperbole, and the latter possibility involves acting upon the definite infinitive in the direct object, and in it—in addition to it not being permissible according to the Kufans and being rare among the Basrans—is the loss of that and an increase in the ellipsis of the object of "I was able."

i.e., my being successful in achieving what I aim for of your reform, ( is not but through Allah, ) i.e., by His support (the Exalted) and His aid.

Some chose that the meaning is: "My success in hitting the truth and the correct path in all that I do and leave is only by His guidance (the Exalted) and aid." It is apparent that the meaning is: "And not every individual part of my success," since the appended infinitive is of the forms of generality. What is said: "The meaning is my generic success," since the exclusivity of the genus necessitates the exclusivity of its individuals, but according to the first it is by way of implication, and according to the second by way of explicit statement. Estimating the prepositional phrase after the ba is something many have committed to, and in it—as is said—is the warding off of the problem that the agent of success is Allah the Exalted, and the people of Arabic consider it ugly to attribute the action to the agent with the ba because it enters upon the tool; so "my striking with Zayd" is not good; rather it is said: "from Zayd." The eloquent usage based on this is "and my success is only from Allah." The aspect of the rebuttal by that estimation is apparent, because the entry is not upon the agent at that time. It is permissible that such estimation is because success, which is the servant's action being in accordance with what Allah loves and is pleased with, is not but by Allah's guidance to it, and mere guidance does not avail without aid from Him (Mighty and Majestic is He).

in that or in all my affairs, not upon other than Him, for He (the Exalted) is the Capable, the Able to do all things, and other than Him (the Exalted) is incapable in its own essence; indeed, it is non-existent, fallen from the degree of consideration, as the Book has pointed out and those of insight and intellect have witnessed.

i.e., I return in what I am addressing or I turn with all my being into the entirety of my affairs, not to other than Him. The sentence is conjoined to what precedes it. It is as if the preference for the future tense in it over the past is more appropriate for establishment and verification, as in reliance, to summon the image and indicate continuity. The beauty of his (peace be upon him) answer, which is almost never found in the speech of an orator unless he be a prophet, is not hidden. In Anwar al-Tanzil, his three answers (peace be upon him)—namely, "O my people, have you considered..." etc., "And I do not intend that I should differ from you" etc., and "I intend" etc.—have a status in this sequence: alerting that a rational person must observe in everything he does and leaves three rights. The most important and highest of them is the right of Allah the Exalted, for the first answer contains the clarification of the right of Allah regarding thanking His bounty and striving in His service. The second is the right of the self, for the second answer contains the clarification of the right of his own self in restraining it from what others should be restrained from. The third is the right of the people, for the third answer contains an indication that the right of others is their reform and guidance. He did not conjoin his saying "I intend" etc. to what precedes it because it is an emphasis and a confirmation for it, because if he intended to monopolize what he forbade, he would not be intending reform. This does not contradict that it contains another answer. It is as if his saying "And my success" etc. is the removal of what attributing ability to himself by his intent might suggest of his monopolizing that. Similar to that is "You (alone) we worship and You (alone) we ask for help." In it, with what follows it, is an indication of pure monotheism. Many scholars said: His speech (peace be upon him) included the observance of the gentleness of interaction, the softness of enticement, the preservation of the beauty of conduct and dialogue, and the laying down of the bonds of truth by seeking success from His side (the Exalted) and seeking help from Him (Mighty and Majestic is He) in their affairs, and the cutting off of the greed of the disbelievers, and the showing of detachment from them and lack of concern for their enmity. It is said: It also contains a threat to them of returning to Allah the Exalted for recompense, which is from his saying: "and to Him I turn back," because returning to Him (the Exalted) is a metonymy for recompense, and although it is specific here because the context demands it, there is no difference in it between him and others. In it, along with the subtlety of the indication, is that "turning back" (inaba) is the voluntary return by action to Him (the Exalted), not the forced return for recompense, and what encompasses it. It is sometimes said: In his saying "Upon Him I have relied," there is also an indication of threatening them, because He (Mighty and Majestic is He) is the Sufficient, the Helper for whoever relies upon Him, but it is not determined that this is a threat of recompense on the Day of Resurrection.