Tafsir of Hud 11:91

They said, "O Shu'aib, we do not comprehend much of what you say."

That is, we do not understand it. It is as if, when their schemes became constricted, their arguments failed them, and they found no way to debate him, peace be upon him, they treated his speech—which comprised various arts of wisdom, admonitions, and types of knowledge and sciences—as mere confusion and delirium, the meaning of which cannot be understood and the essence of which cannot be grasped.

It is also said that they said this to demean him, peace be upon him, just as a man says to someone he does not care about: "I do not know what you are saying." There is no significant difference between this and the first interpretation. It is also possible that this was due to their lack of inclination to hear his speech, peace be upon him, due to their intense aversion to him, or due to their stupidity and the limitations of their intellects.

It is said that their use of "much" (kathiran) was an attempt to avoid outright obstinacy. It is not correct that it should mean "all," even if that usage exists in the language, because "of what you say" resists that, just as "much" itself resists interpreting their speech as a metonymy for total rejection. Some have claimed that they did not comprehend much of what he said because he, peace be upon him, had a lisp, but I do not believe there is a sound report to verify this. Moreover, the apparent description of him, peace be upon him, as the "Preacher of the Prophets" resists such a claim. Perhaps the imperfect verb form is used to indicate continuity.

"And indeed, we see you among us as weak."

That is, among us, you have no power or ability to cause harm or benefit, or to execute or prevent anything. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas, Ibn Jubair, Sufyan al-Thawri, and Abu Salih that they interpreted "weak" as "blind," which is the dialect of the people of Yemen. They use it just as they refer to one as darir (blind). This is a type of metonymy, as some have stated, and referring to him as "having insight" is a metaphor. This interpretation is weakened by the fact that qualifying it with their saying "among us" becomes redundant, because whoever is blind is blind among them and among others. If they intended the implied meaning—that he was weak among those who support him and those who oppose him—the artificiality of this is evident. Hence, the Imam said: "Some of our companions permitted blindness for the prophets, peace be upon them, but it is not appropriate to apply it here." You know that the established view among the Sunnis is that there is no blind person among the prophets, peace be upon them, and what God Almighty narrated about Jacob, peace be upon him, was a temporary affair.

As for the reports narrated regarding Shu'aib, peace be upon him, from those we have mentioned, we have not found any to be authentic except what is narrated from Ibn Abbas—may God be pleased with them both—for Al-Hakim authenticated some of its chains. However, the authentication of Al-Hakim, like the invalidation of Ibn al-Jawzi, is not to be relied upon. Perhaps one might say regarding him what was said regarding Jacob, peace be upon him. Al-Wahidi and Ibn 'Asakir extracted from Shaddad ibn Aws that the Messenger of God (may God bless him and grant him peace) said: "Shu'aib, peace be upon him, wept out of love for God Almighty until he went blind. God returned his sight to him and revealed to him: 'O Shu'aib, what is this weeping? Is it out of longing for Paradise or fear of the Fire?' He replied: 'No, but I have settled Your love in my heart; when I look at You, I do not care what You do to me.' God Almighty revealed to him: 'O Shu'aib, if that is true, then congratulations to you on meeting Me. O Shu'aib, for that, I have served you with Moses son of Imran, My interlocutor.'"

Some of the Mu'tazila argued that it is not permissible for a blind person to be a prophet because it is an isolated trait that prevents him from avoiding impurities, and because it disrupts the performance of judgment and testimony, so it would be more appropriate to disqualify it from the rank of prophethood. We respond by saying: We do not concede that it prevents one from avoiding impurities, as many blind people we observe are more cautious in this regard than others. Furthermore, a judge and a witness need to distinguish between the plaintiff and the defendant, whereas a prophet does not need to distinguish between those who call upon him, especially since he is protected from error (ma'sum), so he does not err like others. That is what has been said, so let it be examined.

"And were it not for your family."

That is, your group. Al-Raghib said: They are those under ten. Al-Zamakhshari said: From three to ten. It is said: Up to seven. It is said: Rather, it is said up to forty. It is not used for anything other than men, like 'usbah (a group) and nafar (a band). Similar to it is al-raht, the plural of which is arhot, and the plural of the plural is arahit. Its root, according to what is reported from Al-Rummani, is "tightness," from which comes al-rahit for someone who eats heavily, and al-rahta' for the burrow of a jerboa, because it fortifies itself and hides its young within it.

The apparent meaning is that they intended: "Were it not for us observing the side of your family, we would have stoned you." That is, we would have killed you by throwing stones. This is what is narrated from Ibn Zayd. It is also said that it is a metonymy for the injury of killing; as if they said: "We would have killed you in the most difficult way." Al-Tabari said: They meant "we would have insulted you," as in His saying: "I will surely stone you, so leave me for a while." It is also said: "We would have driven you away and expelled you from our land." They did not intend the prevention of his family and their defense, because the defense of a family—which is a small number—against thousands is something that can hardly be imagined.

The meaning of "And you are not mighty among us" (91):

You are not honored or respected so that we should refrain from stoning you. We only refrain from you to protect the sanctity of your family who have remained on our religion and have not chosen you over us. The first prepositional phrase is connected to "mighty," and it is permissible because the governed noun is a circumstantial qualifier (zarf) and the ba' is pleonastic. You may also make it connected to an omitted predicate which the apparent one explains, and it is the predicate of "you." Al-Sakkaki stated explicitly in Al-Miftah that the intent behind fronting this pronoun—which is the conceptual agent, even if the predicate is not a verb but an intensive adjective—and placing the negation before it is for restriction and exclusivity. That is, the restriction of the negation: the lack of might is limited to you and does not extend to your family, not in the sense of denying exclusivity, such as "you are not alone in your lack of might." This is apparent, and the second scholar (Al-'Allamah al-Thani) said this. The eminent master (Al-Sayyid al-Sanad) said: It is intended to negate might from Shu'aib, peace be upon him, and affirm it for his family, so it is a specification of might to them, which necessitates the specification of its absence to him. However, what is immediately understood, as confirmed by refined taste, is the intent for the first. Al-Sakkaki argued for this being for restriction based on his (the Prophet's) saying in response to this statement, as narrated by His majesty: <<...>>