Tafsir of Hud 11:91

{ما نفقه} (We do not understand) {كثيرا مما تقول} (much of what you say). They did not turn their minds toward him, out of aversion and hatred, as in the verse: “And We have placed coverings over their hearts, lest they understand it” (Al-An'am: 25). Or, they understood him but refused to accept it, so it was as if they did not understand. They said this to belittle him, just as a man says to his companion when he does not care for his speech: "I do not know what you are saying." Or, they deemed his speech to be delirium and confusion, of which much does not benefit them. How could his speech not benefit them when he was the "Orator of the Prophets"? It is said he had a lisp.

{فينا ضعيفا} (weak among us): You have no power or might among us, so you cannot prevent us if we wish to inflict harm upon you. Al-Hasan said: "weak" means "despised." It is also said: "weak" means "blind." The Himyarites call a blind person "weak," just as they call him "impaired," but this is not sound because the phrase "among us" rejects it. Do you not see that if one were to say, "We see you as blind among us," it would not be coherent speech? For a blind person is blind among them and among others.

For this reason, they belittled his people by calling them a raht (a small group). A raht is from three to ten, or according to some, up to seven. They said "and were it not for your raht" out of respect and consideration for them, because they were of their own religion, not out of fear of their strength or power.

{لرجمناك} (we would have stoned you): We would have killed you in the worst way.

{وما أنت علينا بعزيز} (and you are not honored among us): You are not dear or honored to us, such that we would spare you from killing or exempt you from stoning. Only your raht is dear to us, because they are of our religion; they did not choose you over us, nor did they follow you instead of us. The placement of the negative particle before the pronoun indicates that the judgment falls upon the agent, not the action. It is as if they said: "You are not dear to us, but rather your raht are the ones dear to us." That is why he said in his reply: “Is my raht more dear to you than Allah?” If they had said, "You are not honored by us," this reply would not be valid.

If you ask: "The judgment falls on him and his raht, and they are dearer to them than him, so how is his saying 'Is my raht more dear to you than Allah?' valid?" I say: Their belittlement of him, while he is the Prophet of Allah, is a belittlement of Allah. Thus, when his raht became dearer to them than him, his raht became dearer to them than Allah. Do you not see the Almighty’s saying: “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah” (An-Nisa: 80)?

{واتخذتموه وراءكم ظهريا} (and you have cast it behind your backs): You forgot it and treated it like something discarded behind the back, not to be cared for. Zahri is derived from zahr (back), and the kasra is one of the changes in relative adjectives. An example is their saying amsi (yesterday) for the relative adjective of ams.

{بما تعملون محيط} (He encompasses what you do): He has encompassed your deeds with knowledge, so nothing of them is hidden from Him.

{على مكانتكم} (on your position): Makanah can mean "place" (like makan and makana, or maqam and maqamah), or it can be a verbal noun from makana (to be firm/established). The meaning is: "Act while remaining in your state of polytheism and hatred toward me," or "Act while being established in your enmity, capable of it."

{إني عامل} (I am acting): According to the victory and support that Allah grants me and enables me with.

{من يأتيه} (who will receive): Man (who) can be interrogative, suspending the verb "to know" from acting upon it; as if it were said: "You will soon know which of us will receive a punishment that disgraces him, and which of us is a liar." Or it can be a relative pronoun, with the verb acting upon it; as if it were said: "You will soon know the wretched one who will receive a punishment that disgraces him, and the one who is a liar."

If you ask: "What is the difference between including the fa and omitting it in 'sawfa ta'lamun' (you will soon know)?" I say: Including the fa is an explicit connection with a particle designed for connection. Omitting it is a hidden, implied connection via an isti'naf (resumption), which serves as an answer to an implied question. It is as if they said: "What will happen if we act on our position and you act on yours?" So he said: "You will soon know." He connected it sometimes with the fa and sometimes with isti'naf for rhetorical variation, as is the habit of the eloquent Arabs. The stronger and more eloquent of the two is the isti'naf, which is a chapter of the science of bayan (rhetoric) whose beauties are numerous.

{وارتقبوا} (and wait): Expect the outcome and what I tell you.

{إني معكم رقيب} (I am with you a watcher): Meaning one who waits. Raqib in the sense of raqib (watcher) is like darib (striker) and sarim (cutter). Or it means "one who observes," like ashir (companion) and nadim (drinking companion), or "one who waits," like faqir (poor) and rafi' (high).

If you ask: "He mentioned their acting on their position and his acting on his, then followed it with the outcome for the workers among him and them. The logical sequence would be to say: 'who will receive a punishment that disgraces him, and who is truthful,' so that 'who will receive...' refers to the disbelievers, and 'who is truthful' refers to the Prophet sent to them." I say: The logic is as you mentioned, but because they called him a liar, he said: “And who is a liar”—meaning in your claim and allegation—to expose their ignorance.

If you ask: "Why do the conclusions of the story of 'Ad and the story of Madyan come with waw, while the two middle ones come with fa?" I say: The two middle ones occurred after the mention of a promise, namely: “Their appointment is the morning” (Hud: 81) and “That is a promise not to be belied” (Hud: 65). So the fa was used, which denotes causality, as you say: "I promised him, and when the time came, such and such happened." The other two did not occur in that manner; they were initiated, so it was appropriate to connect them with the conjunction waw to what preceded them, just as one story is connected to another.

{الجاثم} (the fallen): One who remains in his place and does not move, like one who is prostrate. It means Gabriel shouted at them with a single cry, and the soul of each one of them departed while he was in his place, collapsed.

{كأن لم يغنوا} (as if they had not prospered): As if they had not lived in their homes, alive, active, and moving about.

{البعد} (destruction): Meaning distance, which is destruction, like rushd (guidance) meaning rushd. Do you not see his saying: “As Thamud perished”? Al-Sulami read bu'dan with a damma on the 'ayn. The meaning in both structures is the same: the opposite of nearness. However, they wanted to distinguish between destruction as a form of ruin and other meanings, so they changed the structure, just as they distinguished between the two types of promises (good and evil) by saying wa'ada (promised good) and aw'ada (threatened evil). Al-Sulami’s reading follows the original form, considering the meaning of distance without specification, just as one says "so-and-so went" or "passed away" to mean death. It is also said: the meaning is "distance for them from the mercy of Allah, just as Thamud was distanced from it."