Hud: (92) "He said, 'O my people...'"

(He said, 'O my people, is my clan more dear to you than Allah?') That is, more dear than the Prophet of Allah. The reasoning for this, as stated by the Allamah and others, is that if their intention was not to restrict dearness to him—but merely to inform him that he was not dear to them—this response would not hold, nor would it correspond to their statement. For denying dearness to him does not imply its establishment for another. This is only indicated by the restriction in the denial of dearness.

The author of al-Idah objected, stating that this is of the category "I am a knower" (ana ‘arif), which—by consensus—does not imply exclusivity. Exclusivity is only achieved by preceding the verb, such as "I have known" (ana ‘araftu). The fact that derivatives (nouns) are close to verbs in strength does not necessitate that they are like verbs in exclusivity. Furthermore, relying on the answer is weak, as it could be a response to their statement: "Had it not been for your clan, we would have stoned you," which indicates that his clan were the ones who were dear, since the abstention from stoning him was due to them, not him. It is known from the situation and context that this was due to their dearness, not their fear.

The Master, the Authority (Sayyid al-Sanad), countered this by stating that the author of al-Kashshaf explicitly affirmed exclusivity in the verse: "Nay, it is a statement he is the one saying" (69:44). How, then, can it be said that the category "I am a knower" does not imply exclusivity by consensus? As for making it a response to "You are not dear to us," this is the obvious interpretation, provided the tanwin (nunation) is for magnification. Thus, it denotes the establishment of the origin of dearness for him (peace be upon him). However, the implication of their saying "Had it not been for your clan, we would have stoned you" suggests a shared dearness, which does not accord with "Is my clan more dear to you?"

Then he said: If it is asked, "The condition for exclusivity, according to al-Sakkaki, is that the antecedent must be such that if it were postponed, it would be the semantic agent, and this is not conceivable in our case," we say: The attribute after the negation stands independently with its agent in speech. Thus, it is permissible to say, "Not dear are you," considering anta (you) as an emphasis for the hidden pronoun. Then, it is moved forward, and the ba is attached to ‘aziz after moving anta forward and making it a subject. The same applies to His words: "And I am not a driver away of those who believe" (11:29) and "And you are not over them a guardian" (6:107), where the predicate is an attribute following the particle of negation. The author of al-Kashshaf and others have explicitly stated that the fronting (in such cases) indicates restriction. As for the affirmative form, such as ana ‘arif, this does not apply; therefore, it does not imply exclusivity for him, even if it is considered as such by those who do not impose that condition.

The author of al-Kashf answered the objection of the author of al-Idah after citing his summary: That what contains the predicate as an attribute is similar to what contains the predicate as a verb in implying strength—as the objector conceded—and it is also similar in implying restriction for that very reason. Their saying, "Had it not been for your clan, we would have stoned you," is sufficient evidence that the meaning of the speech is to imply exclusivity, not the origin of dearness. Therefore, understanding it in this way does not contradict it being an answer to this statement; rather, it confirms it. al-Zamakhshari has explicitly stated that a structure like this allows for two possibilities in the verse "it is a statement he is the one saying."

The Allamah al-Tayyibi said: "His words, 'Had it not been for your clan, we would have stoned you,' and His words, 'And you are not dear to us,' are a matter of tard wa ‘aks (reciprocal opposition) due to their obstinacy; thus, both the explicit meaning and the implied meaning must be present in each of the two phrases." End quote.

From all that has been mentioned, the weakness of the objection of the author of al-Idah is known. It is surprising that the Allamah said it was a strong objection. al-Sakkaki indicated, by estimating an omitted genitive (mudaf), the repulsion of the problem, namely that their discussion was specifically regarding Shu'ayb (peace be upon him) and his clan, and that they were the ones who were dear, excluding him, without implying that they were dearer than Allah.

It was also answered that their disdain for the Prophet of Allah is disdain for Him (Exalted be He). Thus, when his clan became dearer to them than him, his clan was dearer to them than Allah. Or, the meaning is: "Is my clan more dear to you than Allah, such that your abstention from stoning me was due to my affiliation with them as my clan, and not due to my affiliation with Allah and the fact that I am His Messenger?"

Furthermore, what the Master—may his secret be sanctified—mentioned regarding making the tanwin in ‘aziz for magnification—where the speech then indicates the establishment of the origin of dearness for him, peace be upon him, and is thus compatible with "Is my clan more dear..."—is correct in itself. However, it is very far from the state of the people, as the appearance is that they intended to negate dearness from him (peace be upon him) absolutely and establish it for his clan, not to negate the "great dearness" from him while establishing it for them, so as to show that they shared the origin of dearness with the clan having more of it. This is because dearness, even if not "great," prevents stoning with stones, which is the worst type of killing. I do not think anyone would deny this except through obstinacy.

It seems that for this reason, our Master Abu al-Su’ud—may mercy be upon him—did not consider the tanwin to be for magnification in order for the participation to occur, so the aspect of denying the "dearer" status would appear. He had to uncover this despite the lack of participation, saying: "Shu’ayb (peace be upon him) denied their considering his clan dearer than Allah, even though what they established was only the absolute dearness of his clan, not their being dearer than Him (Exalted be He), while sharing the origin of dearness." This is to double the castigation and repeat the rebuke, as he denied them, first, the prioritizing of the aspect of the clan over the aspect of Allah, and second, the absolute negation of dearness. The meaning is: "Is my clan dearer to you than Allah?"—for it is something that is hardly correct, while you have not given Allah any share of dearness at all—"and you have taken Him"—due to your lack of regard for the One who does not respond or act except by His command—"behind your backs (a thing cast away, behind the back, forgotten)." End quote.

I say: al-Radi mentioned that the noun governed by min (the comparative) cannot be devoid of sharing the meaning of the predicate, either in reality—as in "Zayd is better than Amr"—or in estimation—as in the saying of Ali—may Allah ennoble his face: "For me to fast a day of Sha'ban is more beloved to me than to break my fast on a day of Ramadan." This is because breaking the fast of the day of doubt, which could be part of Ramadan, is beloved to the opponent. Ali—may Allah ennoble his face—estimated it as being beloved to himself as well, then preferred the day of Sha'ban over it; as if he said: "Grant that it is beloved to me also, is not fasting a day of Sha'ban more beloved than it?" End quote.

What is in the verse can be explained along the lines of the latter; thus, his (peace be upon him) denial of them considering his clan dearer than Him is based on the estimation that He (Exalted be He) is also dear to them. From this, his denial of what they are upon is known a fortiori. It seems this is what motivated the choice of this style of denial. Its occurrence in the answer does not invalidate this, even if it is said that it is permissible for the noun governed by min to be devoid of sharing the predicate, and that mere exaggeration is intended by the af'al form paired with it, based on its rare occurrence—as Jalal al-Suyuti mentioned in Ham' al-Hawami'—such as "Honey is sweeter than vinegar" and "Summer is hotter than winter." Relying here on the evidence of the preceding and surrounding context, the matter is clear.

It is considered good that His saying: "And you have taken Him..." etc., is an interpolation (i'tirad), its benefit being the confirmation of their disdain for Allah by stating that they are a people whose habit it is to not care about Allah and to treat Him like a cast-away thing. Some permitted that it be a conjunction to what preceded it, in the sense of "You have preferred my clan over Allah, the Exalted, and you have shown disdain for Him, the Exalted, and you have forgotten Him, and you have not feared His punishment, the Almighty."

Many have said: It is possible that the intent of his words (peace be upon him), "Is my clan..." etc., is a rebuttal and a refutation of his people. For when they claimed that they do not refrain from stoning him due to his dearness, but rather due to observing the side of his clan, he refuted that by saying: "You have not valued Allah with His true value, and you have not observed His mighty sanctity, so how would you observe my lowly clan?"

Regardless, the pronoun in "You have taken Him" returns to Allah—and this is what the majority of exegetes have gone toward, narrated from Ibn Abbas, al-Hasan, and others. Zahriyy is attributed to zahr (back); its origin is "thrown behind the back." The kasrah is from the changes in attribution, as they said regarding the attribution to ams (yesterday): amsi with a kasrah, and to dahr (time): dahri with a dammah. Then they expanded its usage, employing it for the forgotten and abandoned. They mentioned that it is possible for the speech to contain an explicit metaphor or a representative metaphor.

Some claimed that the pronoun is for Him (Exalted be He), and zahriyy is the aid and that by which one is strengthened, and the clause is in the position of a state (hal), the meaning being: "You preferred the clan over Allah and did not observe His right, the Exalted, while you take Him as the support for your backs and the pillar of your hopes."

Ibn Atiyyah narrated this meaning from a group. It is said: Zahriyy is the forgotten, and the pronoun returns to the Shari'ah (Law) that Shu'ayb (peace be upon him) brought, even if it was not explicitly mentioned, narrated from Mujahid. Or it returns to the command of Allah, narrated from al-Zajjaj. It is said: Zahriyy means the helper, and the pronoun is for Allah, and the speech contains an omitted mudaf, meaning: "His disobedience." The meaning, according to what Abu Hayyan established, is: "And you have taken His disobedience—the Exalted—as an aid and preparation to repel me." It is said: There is no omission, and the pronoun is for "the disobedience," which is what the speech of al-Mubarrad necessitates.

It is not hidden that these interpretations involve departing from the literal without benefit. Among those that fall into the same category is the interpretation of al-'aziz as "the king," assuming that they used to call the king 'aziz. Any person with the slightest taste would hardly accept the correctness of this. So take note. Zahriyy is in the accusative as a second object for ittakhadtumuhu, the ha (him) being its first object, and wara'akum (behind you) is a circumstantial adverb for it, or a state for zahriyy.

"Indeed, my Lord is encompassing of what you do."

This is a great threat to those immoral disbelievers; that is, He, the Exalted, has encompassed with knowledge your evil deeds, among which is your observing the side of the clan while failing to observe His sanctity, the Majestic is His Majesty, so He will punish you for that. Likewise is His saying: <<...>>