Appearance
Verses 25–35
This section of verses begins with the stories of the prophets, starting with Noah and followed by a group including Hūd, Ṣāliḥ, Abraham, Lot, Jethro (Shuʿayb), and Moses. The story of Noah is divided into sections, the first of which covers his arguments with his people about monotheism. As noted by God Almighty in His Book, Noah is one of the first prophets to preach monotheism in the face of idolatry. Most of Noah’s debates with his people are presented in the best possible manner, some in the form of moral exhortations, and a few from the perspective of logical arguments. This suits the thinking of early humans and the simple, ancient man, particularly their social thought, which only displays the thinking of individuals of average intelligence.
وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا نُوحًا إِلَىٰ قَوْمِهِ إِنِّي لَكُمْ نَذِيرٌ مُبِينٌ ٢٥
(11:25) Certainly We sent Noah to his people: ‘Indeed (innī) I am a manifest warner to you …’
The common recitation of this verse uses the preposition innī, assuming that this represents the beginning of a statement by Noah. A variant recitation is annī, with the implicit meaning bi-annī.
In any case, the sentence, Certainly We sent Noah to his people: ‘Indeed I am a manifest warner to you …’ is a general exposition of Noah’s message, as everything he conveyed to his people on behalf of his Lord was a manifest warning, so he is a manifest warner.
If he were to say, ‘Whatever I communicate to you in words is a clear warning,’ this would be a summary of the entirety of his mission, expressed in the most succinct form. The same is true of his saying, ‘Indeed I am a manifest warner to you.’ However, while this also summarizes his mission, it actually goes further than the previous statement by clarifying his role—that he is a messenger from God to warn his people of God’s punishment, and he is nothing more than an intermediary carrying the message.
أَنْ لَا تَعْبُدُوا إِلَّا اللَّهَ ۖ إِنِّي أَخَافُ عَلَيْكُمْ عَذَابَ يَوْمٍ أَلِيمٍ ٢٦
(11:26) ‘… Worship none but Allah. Indeed I fear for you the punishment of a painful day.’
This is another explanation of his mission, or an exposition of his previous statement saying, Indeed I am a manifest warner to you. Both explanations lead to the same point, namely to clarify the nature of his mission, which was to prohibit the worship of anyone other than God through warnings and intimidations.
Some commentators have suggested that the phrase, Worship none but Allah, serves as a substitution (badal) for his statement, Indeed I am a manifest warner to you, or it may be seen as the object of his clear warning. However, the context supports the interpretation we have previously provided.
It appears that the punishment of a painful day refers to the punishment of divine extermination rather than the punishment that awaits on the Day of Resurrection, or it could refer to divine punishment in general. This interpretation is supported by their response to him, which appears below: They said, ‘O Noah, you have disputed with us already, and you have disputed with us exceedingly. Now bring us what you threaten us with should you be truthful. He said, ‘Allah will indeed bring it on you if He wishes, and you cannot thwart ().
Thus, Noah called on them to renounce idol worship and warned them of a painful punishment from God. This pain is attributed to the day rather than the punishment in the phrase the punishment of a painful day—this is describing the context in place of the events that take place in it.
Given the above, we can reject the claim that the punishment of the polytheists is predestined and inevitable, so why would Noah fear an inevitable punishment? Fear is only reasonable in situations where the occurrence is possible, not inevitable.
In summary, Noah was calling them to monotheism by instilling a fear of divine punishment. He warned them of this because they worshipped idols out of fear of their wrath. Noah confronted them with the fact that it is God Almighty—and not their false deities—who created them, directed their lives, and looked after their affairs by creating the heavens and the earth, making the sun and moon shine, sending rain, causing the earth to sprout vegetation, creating gardens, and dividing rivers, as God tells us in Sūrah Nūḥ.
Given this reality, God Almighty is their Lord and there is no other Lord besides Him. Therefore, they should only fear His punishment and worship Him alone.
In truth, this argument is a demonstrative one based on certainty, but they received it as a speculative argument based on conjecture. Due to their naive understanding, they expected God’s wrath and punishment for disobedience because they saw Him as a master of their affairs, who took care of their interests. They compared His will with that of human masters in their own society, who demanded respect and compliance. If anyone resisted these earthly masters and refused to comply, they would be subjected to their wrath and punishment for their transgressions and rebelliousness.
According to this argument, it is necessary to please the Lord or the lords who govern the affairs of the universe and administer the cosmic order. It becomes essential to satisfy them and extinguish the fires of their wrath through submitting to them and propitiating them through offerings, sacrifices, and other forms of worship. Such was their belief, which was grounded in conjecture.
However, the matter of divine punishment befalling those who reject the worship of God and arrogantly resist submitting to His Lordship is a matter of reality and certitude. One of the universal principles operating in the universe is the need of the weak to submit to the strong and the oppressed to the oppressor. What then can be said about God, the One, the Overpowering, to whom the destiny of all matters devolves?
God Almighty created the different parts of the universe and interconnected them, then He events in motion according to the system of cause and effect. On this basis, everything operates within an existential order. Therefore, if anything deviates from the path outlined by the rest of the causes, this leads to a disruption of the cosmic order and represents a challenge to it. In such a situation, all the cosmic causes rise from the different parts of existence to rectify its course and bring it back to a path that befits them, thus warding off harm to themselves. If this deviant part corrects its course, it survives; otherwise, it is crushed by the general causes and gripped by misfortunes and calamities. This too is a universal principle.
Now, the human being is a part of the universe, and he has a life course outlined for him by virtue of his creation and origination. If he follows the path that has been laid out for him, it leads him to his happiness and puts him in alignment with the rest of the universe. The heavens open their doors to him and shower him with blessings and the earth yields its treasures of goodness. This is Islam, the religion appointed by God Almighty for humankind, and it is the faith which Noah called people to through his message and, after him, all the prophets and messengers.
If a person deviates and strays from this path, he challenges the cosmic order and the different parts of existence that make up the universe, encroaching on their affairs. In such a case, he should anticipate the bitterness of calamities and expect punishment and suffering to result. If he rectifies his course and submits to the will of God, which shields him from the general causes of destruction, it is hoped that these blessings will return to him after he has suffered adversities. Otherwise, only destruction and annihilation await him, and indeed God is self-sufficient, needing nothing from the worlds. This discussion has been addressed in some parts of the previous chapters.
فَقَالَ الْمَلَأُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ قَوْمِهِ مَا نَرَاكَ إِلَّا بَشَرًا مِثْلَنَا وَمَا نَرَاكَ اتَّبَعَكَ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ هُمْ أَرَاذِلُنَا بَادِيَ الرَّأْيِ وَمَا نَرَىٰ لَكُمْ عَلَيْنَا مِنْ فَضْلٍ بَلْ نَظُنُّكُمْ كَاذِبِينَ ٢٧
(11:27) But (fa) the elite of the faithless from among his people said, ‘We do not see you to be anything but a human being like ourselves, and we do not see anyone following you except those who are simpleminded riffraff from our midst. Nor do we see that you have any merit over us. Rather we consider you to be liars.’
The preposition fa (but) at the beginning of the verse serves to distinguish their response from Noah’s statement and indicates that they rejected and denied his message in haste without contemplating what would be most beneficial for them.
Those who responded to Noah were the eminent, nobles, and worthies from among his own people who disbelieved in him. However, in their response, they did not address the argument he presented to them to make the case for monotheism. Instead, they focused on denying his prophethood and arrogantly refusing to obey him. His saying, Indeed I am a manifest warner to you, … was a claim of prophethood and, as such, implied that they were morally obliged to follow him. He clarified this in another place, as God said, ‘O my people! Indeed I am a manifest warner to you. Worship Allah and be wary of Him, and obey me’ ().
The essence of their response, as conveyed by God in the Qurʾan, is that there is no evidence to necessitate following him and that rather, the evidence suggests the contrary. Thus, in truth, there are two arguments they deploy in their dispute with Noah. That is why they concluded their rebuttal by saying, ‘Rather we consider you to be liars.’
The first argument they make is that there is no evidence to oblige them to follow him. This is laid out through three statements: their saying, ‘We do not see you to be anything but a human being like ourselves …’; their saying, ‘and we do not see anyone following you except those who are simpleminded riffraff from our midst …’; and their saying, ‘Nor do we see that you have any merit over us …’
The argument, with all its parts, is premised on a rejection of anything that is beyond the perception of the senses, as we will clarify. This is why they repeat the verb, ‘see’ in each of these statements.
When they say, We do not see you to be anything but a human being like ourselves …, this is their first response to Noah’s claim of prophethood. They held fast to this argument, as was the habit of all nations with their prophets, according to what God has narrated in His Book, namely: ‘You are a human being like us. If you were truly a messenger from God, you would not be so. We see you only as human like us. Therefore, since you are a human like us, there is no obligation to follow you.’
This statement denies his prophethood by asserting that he is nothing but a man like them, and then concluding from that, there is no reason for them to follow him. The evidence for this is Noah’s own statement, as God Almighty relates: O my people! Tell me, should I stand on a manifest proof from my Lord …
This matter has been a subject of confusion for some commentators. They understood the statement, We do not see you to be anything but a human being like ourselves …, as them equating him with themselves in terms of social standing and, hence, concluding that they had no reason to follow him. One commentator explained the verse saying that Noah’s people countered with four potent arguments. One of these was that he was a man just like them, thus they levelled him with themselves in general terms. This indicates that Noah was of their social class or close to it in his household and in his person, as was the case with every messenger from among his people. The thrust of the argument is that his equality with them negates the claim of superiority of one equal over another, making one a submissive follower and the other a followed leader, because this would be an arbitrary preference.
However, if the verse meant what these commentators claimed it did, it would have been more fitting for Noah’s people to say, ‘you are like us,’ or ‘we see you as one of us’, rather than saying, We do not see you to be anything but a human being like ourselves. There would be no reason to explicitly call attention to his humanity as we observe in the verse. Furthermore, this statement would mean the same as Nor do we see that you have any merit over us, which would make the first statement redundant.
It is strange that these commentators understood the statement, We do not see you to be anything but a human being like ourselves, to be an affirmation of their equality with him in terms of his person and family, and then added that ‘this was the state of every messenger among their own people’, when this includes the likes of Abraham, Solomon, and Job.
As for when they say, and we do not see anyone following you except those who are simpleminded riffraff (arādhilunā) from our midst, al-Rāghib says:
‘Radhl (‘low’, ‘base’), ridhl refer to what is undesirable due to its innate inferiority. This is seen in God’s saying, … and there are some among you who are relegated to the nethermost age … (); and we do not see anyone following you except those who are simpleminded riffraff; and They said, ‘Shall we believe in you, when it is the riffraff who follow you?’ (). The plural of radhl is aradhil.’
In the book Majmaʿ al-bayān, al-Ṭabrisī says:
‘Radhal means base and despicable from every aspect. The plural is aradhil, and the pluplural is arādhil, in the same way as kalb (‘dog’) is made plural first as aklab (‘dogs’), then akālīb (‘many dogs’). It is also possible that ardhal (‘lowest’) can be pluralised as arādhil, in the same way as akābir is the plural of akbar (‘greatest’).’
He also says:
‘The word raʾy in bādī al-raʾy (‘simpleminded’), literally means ‘sight’ (ruʾya), as per the verse, who saw them visibly twice as many (), meaning with their eyes.’
In his al-Mufradāt, al-Rāghib said:
‘bādī al-raʾy (‘simpleminded’) refers to a person’s first thoughts on a matter. It can also mean to give opinions without thinking.’
The phrase bādī al-raʾy could be a qualifier of those who are … riffraff (arādhil), meaning that they appear to be the lowest of us at first glance.
It could also be understood as a qualifier to the statement, anyone following you, meaning: ‘they follow you based on initial impressions without deep reflection. If they reflected even a little and thoroughly examined your affair, they would not have followed you.’ However, this reading requires the introduction of a second, implicit, verb, namely, ‘they follow you at first glance.’ If this second verb is not introduced, then the meaning becomes disordered. It is also said to mean, ‘We do not see you being followed at first glance except by these who are lowest.’ In short, the meaning of the verse is: ‘We see that your followers are the lowest and basest members of the people, and if we followed you would make us like them, and we will be counted among them. This would deprive us of our dignity and our power in society.’ This statement contains an implicit denial of his prophethood, since it is a common belief that if such a claim were true and beneficial, it would be followed by the great and good of society—those who hold power and authority. If they disdained it or if it were only followed by the lowly and weak, such as the slaves, the poor, and the needy who possess neither wealth nor prestige, nor any status among the common folk, then there is no good in it.
Their statement, Nor do we see that you have any merit over us, aims to deny that he enjoys any kind of superiority over them, whether in terms of worldly possessions that they benefit from or something of the Unseen, such as knowledge of the Unseen or being supported with a supernatural force. This is due to the indefinite noun ‘merit’ (faḍl) occurring in the context of a negation, hence, implying generality.
They associated Noah’s followers and those among them who believed in him with his mission when they said Nor do we see that you (plural) have any merit over us, instead of saying, ‘Nor do we see that you (singular) have any merit …’ This is because they were encouraging them to follow the path they had chosen for themselves.
The meaning here is that your calling to us—while we enjoy the perks of worldly life such as wealth, children, knowledge, and power—would only be justified and have an impact if you had some advantage that you could bestow upon us, whether it is from the beauties of this worldly life, knowledge of the Unseen, or supernatural power that would make us submit to you. We do not see anything like this with you, so what would compel us to follow you?
We read ‘merit’ (faḍl) in a general sense that encompasses both material aspects and metaphysical ones, such as knowledge of the Unseen and supernatural power. This reading differs from the majority of commentators, who tend to limit ‘merit’ to material wealth and abundance, given the broad implication that can be inferred from their discourse because it occurs in the context of a negation.
This is in addition to the fact that Noah’s response to their statement hints at this broader meaning, I do not say to you that I possess the treasuries of Allah, neither do I know the Unseen. I do not claim to be an angel … ().
The statement, Rather we consider you to be liars draws a conclusion to their argument, as we have previously discussed. The upshot is that we see no valid reason to follow you, but there is a valid reason not to follow you, we believe you are lying.
Based on the context of the verse, the meaning is: ‘Because you lack evidence supporting your claims and keep pressing us to listen and obey, yet you lack life’s advantages such as wealth and prestige, it would be reasonable to suspect that you are lying about your mission. You might be seeking to attain what we possess in life through this means. Overall, these indicators typically suggest a falsehood used to gain wealth, seize people’s property, and assert authority over them through ruling and leadership. This is demonstrated by God’s narration of their account, as seen in Sūrah al-Muʾminūn: But the elite of the faithless from among his people said, ‘This is just a human being like you, who seeks to gain an advantage over you …’ (). This explains why they suspect him of lying rather than believing it with certainty.
قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ أَرَأَيْتُمْ إِنْ كُنْتُ عَلَىٰ بَيِّنَةٍ مِنْ رَبِّي وَآتَانِي رَحْمَةً مِنْ عِنْدِهِ فَعُمِّيَتْ عَلَيْكُمْ أَنُلْزِمُكُمُوهَا وَأَنْتُمْ لَهَا كَارِهُونَ ٢٨
(11:28) He said, ‘O my people! Tell me, should I stand on a manifest proof from my Lord, and He has granted me His own mercy—though it should be invisible to you—shall we force it upon you while you are averse to it?
In this and in the following four verses, Noah articulates his response to their argument. The phrase, though it should be invisible to you, implies it has been hidden due to their own ignorance and aversion to the truth. In another reading, though it should be invisible to you, means that God’s mercy has been hidden from you.
Given that their argument was based on their physical senses and their denial of the metaphysical, from which they first inferred the absence of any evidence that they should follow and obey him. Then, they went a step further to argue that there was evidence that they did not need to follow him, or even that they were obliged not to follow him. In response, Noah affirmed his prophethood and its implications, which they sought to reject. He also rejected their accusation of lying that they made towards him and his followers. However, at the same time, he entreated them by repeatedly addressing them as ‘my people’ in order to draw them closer, hoping that his advice would be accepted by them.
The noble verses have excelled in laying out Prophet Noah’s argument in response to them, in which he dismantled their arguments piece by piece. Each segment of their argument was addressed from two aspects: their claim of lack of evidence supporting the obligation to follow him and the supposed evidence contradicting it. This can be seen in his responses, ‘O my people! Tell me, should I stand on a manifest proof from my Lord…’; ‘But I will not drive away those who have faith…’; ‘I do not say to you that I possess the treasuries of Allah…’
The verses then proceed to summarize each of the three arguments and incorporate them into the subsequent argument, interweaving one with the next, each being distinct and complete in its own right. Thus, the arguments are presented threefold, each initiated with an address, such as: ‘O my people! Tell me, should I stand on a manifest proof …’ ; ‘O my people! I do not ask you any material reward for it …’, and, ‘O my people! Who would come to my help against Allah were I to drive them away …’. These are worth further consideration.
He said, ‘O my people! Tell me, should I stand on a manifest proof from my Lord, and He has granted me His own mercy: This is a response to their statement, ‘We do not see you to be anything but a human being like ourselves …’, by which they meant that he had nothing but his humanity, in which he resembled them. Therefore, what right does he have to claim that people should follow him? They accused him of lying and trying to use his claim of prophethood to seize their wealth and attain a position of leadership over them.
Given that they deny his prophethood based on the fact that he was a mere human, without any apparent signs of prophethood or connection to the Unseen, it was necessary to remind them of the miraculous signs (verses) that confirmed his claim of prophethood. Prophethood is kind of a supernatural connection to the Unseen, and its authenticity can only be verified through the manifestation of another supernatural event that confirms the truthfulness of the prophet’s claim. This is why Noah said, ‘O my people! Tell me, should I stand on a manifest proof from my Lord…’, indicating that he has clear evidence from God and a miraculous sign that attests to his claim.
From this perspective, it becomes clear that ‘manifest proof’ (bayyina) refers to a miraculous sign which proves the validity of his prophethood, as this is what fits with the context. Thus, the interpretations of some commentators suggesting that ‘manifest proof’ in this verse refers to intuitive knowledge, by which the prophet knows that he is a prophet, can be disregarded as it does not match the context of the verse.
…and He has granted me His own mercy—though it should be invisible to you: This ostensibly refers to what God has bestowed upon Noah in terms of scripture and knowledge. The Qurʾan repeatedly refers to scripture, as well as God’s knowledge and signs, as a ‘mercy’ (raḥma). For example, previously in this chapter, God said, And before him there was the Book of Moses, a guide and mercy (). He also says, We have sent down the Book to you as a clarification of all things and as a guidance and a mercy … (), and, they found one of Our servants whom We had granted a mercy from Ourselves (), and, ‘Our Lord! Do not make our hearts swerve after You have guided us, and bestow Your mercy on us.’ ().
As for his saying, though it should be invisible to you, ‘it’ apparently refers to God’s mercy, meaning that their ignorance and their aversion to the truth has hidden from them the knowledge and understanding that he possesses, even though he has informed them about it and has spread it amongst them.
When he says, shall we force it upon you (nulzimu-kumū-hā) while you are averse to it?—The verb ilzām (from whence nuzlimu is derived) means to attach one thing to another in a way that makes it inseparable from it. This means to impose God’s mercy upon them while they are averse to it by compelling them to believe in God and His signs, and embodying the qualities of enlightenment and insight that divine knowledge requires.
Therefore, the meaning of the verse is: ‘Tell me, if I have a miraculous sign that verifies my message, despite being a human like you, and I possess the knowledge and scripture necessary to guide you to the truth with my message. However, due to your stubbornness and arrogance, this was quickly concealed from you. So, should we then compel you to it?’ In other words, I have all that a messenger of God needs for his message, and I have informed you about it, but you do not believe in it out of sinfulness and arrogance. I am not required to force you to believe in it, as there is no compulsion in the religion of God Almighty.
This statement implies that the argument has been decisively completed for them and the truth has been revealed, but they still refuse to believe. However, they still demand some reason to believe, but in reality this is tantamount to compulsion and forcing them to believe against their will. This is because, when they said, We do not see you to be anything but a human being like ourselves, this shows that they are looking for something to compel them to believe, and there is no compulsion in the religion of God.
This is one of the verses in the Qurʾan that negate any coercion or compulsion from religion, showing that this was one of the first ordinances to be legislated in the earliest iterations of the divine law—the code of Noah—and that it still stands today without ever having been abrogated.
Based on the above, it is clear that when Noah said, ‘O my people! Tell me, should I stand on a manifest proof from my Lord…’, it was a response to their argument, ‘We do not see you to be anything but a human being like ourselves.’ This exposes the error of those commentators who claim that it is a response to their statement, ‘Rather we consider you to be liars’, or those who claim it is a response to their argument, ‘and we do not see anyone following you except those who are simpleminded riffraff from our midst’, or the view of yet another group of commentators who say that it answers their argument, ‘Nor do we see that you have any merit over us.’ Therefore, we will not allow the discussion to become overly long by explaining and refuting these views.
وَيَا قَوْمِ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ مَالًا ۖ إِنْ أَجْرِيَ إِلَّا عَلَى اللَّهِ ۚ وَمَا أَنَا بِطَارِدِ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ۚ إِنَّهُمْ مُلَاقُو رَبِّهِمْ وَلَٰكِنِّي أَرَاكُمْ قَوْمًا تَجْهَلُونَ ٢٩
(11:29) ‘O my people! I do not ask you any material reward for it. My reward lies only with Allah. But I will not drive away those who have faith. Indeed they will encounter their Lord. But I see that you are an ignorant lot.’
This is intended as a response to their accusation that he was lying, with the implication that his call must be a way to seize their wealth and usurp their possessions out of greed. If he is not asking them for any of their wealth, then they have no basis to accuse him of this.
‘But I will not drive away those who have faith…: This is a response to their statement, ‘and we do not see anyone following you except those who are simpleminded riffraff from our midst.’ Note that it replaces the term, ‘riffraff’—which is intended to demean and belittle the believers—with ‘those who have faith’, this emphasizes their connection to God and dignifies their faith and belief.
Through his response, Noah refuses to drive them away and explains his refusal by saying, ‘Indeed they will encounter their Lord.’ In doing so, he calls attention to the fact that there is a day when they will return to God and be held accountable for their deeds, receiving recompense for whatever good or evil they have done while they were alive. Their judgement is with their Lord, and no one else has any say in the matter. Thus, it is not up to Noah to hold them to account or to recompense them in any way. However, due to their ignorance, the elite of his people who disbelieve expect the poor, the needy, and the weak to be driven away from the community of goodness, and to be deprived of blessings, respect, and dignity.
Therefore, it becomes clear that what is meant by, ‘Indeed they will encounter their Lord’, is that they believe they will be held to account by God on the day they return to Him and stand before Him. A similar idea is expressed in the verse, Do not drive away those who supplicate their Lord morning and evening desiring His face. Neither are you accountable for them in any way, nor are they accountable for you in any way, so that you may drive them away and thus become one of the wrongdoers ().
Some scholars have explained Noah’s statement, ‘Indeed they will encounter their Lord’ as meaning that he does not drive them away because they are destined to meet their Lord, who will render justice to those who have been wronged and expelled. Others have said it means he does not drive them away because they are destined to receive rewards from their Lord, so how could he consider them ‘riffraff’ and how could it be permissible to expel them when they do not deserve such treatment? However, both of these readings are far from the apparent meaning of the text. Furthermore, the first one renders the following verse, O my people! Who would come to my help against Allah were I to drive them away? () superfluous, as should be obvious.
It also appears that when he says, ‘But I see that you are an ignorant lot’, he is referring to their ignorance about the Hereafter and about the fact that judgement and recompense belong solely to God and not to anyone else. Some scholars have suggested that ignorance (jahl) here refers to their behavior, meaning they are lacking in good sense and behaving foolishly; others have suggested it means that they are ignorant of the fact that the only thing that sets one human being apart from another is following the truth, doing good deeds, and adopting virtuous characteristics, rather than wealth or status, as they imagine. However, neither of these meetings accord with the context of the verse.
وَيَا قَوْمِ مَنْ يَنْصُرُنِي مِنَ اللَّهِ إِنْ طَرَدْتُهُمْ ۚ أَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ ٣٠
(11:30) ‘O my people! Who would come to my help (yanṣuru-nī) against Allah were I to drive them away? Will you not then take admonition?’
Naṣr (‘help’) means to protect or save someone from something. In this case, Noah asks his audience: ‘Who among you could protect me or save me from God’s punishment if he drove away the believers who you deride as “riffraff”? Do you not see that to do this to them would be a grave wrong and God Almighty comes to the aid of those who are wronged against the ones who wronged them and avenges them? Surely reason dictates that God does not treat oppressor and oppressed equally, nor does he leave the oppressor to oppress others without requiting him for his injustice in a way that hurts him and heals the heart of the oppressed, for surely God is Mighty and Vengeful.’
وَلَا أَقُولُ لَكُمْ عِنْدِي خَزَائِنُ اللَّهِ وَلَا أَعْلَمُ الْغَيْبَ وَلَا أَقُولُ إِنِّي مَلَكٌ وَلَا أَقُولُ لِلَّذِينَ تَزْدَرِي أَعْيُنُكُمْ لَنْ يُؤْتِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ خَيْرًا ۖ اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ ۖ إِنِّي إِذًا لَمِنَ الظَّالِمِينَ ٣١
(11:31) ‘I do not say to you that I possess the treasuries of Allah, neither do I know the Unseen. I do not claim to be an angel, neither do I say of those who are despicable in your eyes that Allah will not grant them any good—Allah knows best what is in their hearts—for then I would indeed be a wrongdoer.’
This is a response to their saying, ‘Nor do we see that you have any merit over us.’ He refutes their argument by asserting that he does not claim to possess any merit they might expect from him by virtue of his claim of prophethood. They presume that a prophet should have access to the treasuries of divine mercy, being able to enrich the poor, heal the sick, resurrect the dead, and control the heavens and the earth and all parts of the universe as he wills and however he wills. And to have the knowledge of the Unseen, thereby acquiring all forms of concealed goodness and warding off all forms of hidden harm. In sum, they expected a prophet to increase in goodness and be safeguarded from all misfortune. They believed that a prophet should ascend from the level of humanity to the station of divinity, that is, to become a sovereign who was free from natural weaknesses and free from the needs and imperfections of humanity. He should not eat, drink, marry, or have to earn a livelihood in order to procure the necessities and wares of life.
It is as if to say: ‘These are the aspects of superiority that you claim a messenger must possess and independently control, but you are mistaken. The messenger’s only claim is the message he brings. I do not claim any of these things: I do not claim to possess the treasuries of God, nor do I claim to know the Unseen, nor do I claim to be an angel. In sum, I do not claim any of the merits or advantages which you expect from me and which you deny me for lacking. I only claim that I have clear proof from my Lord that confirms my message and grants me mercy from Him.’
The treasuries of Allah refers to all the hidden treasures and resources from which creatures draw their provision, meet their needs of subsistence, and remedy their wants and deficiencies.
Ordinary folk assume that prophets and saints must be given the keys to these divine treasuries and, with them, possess the power to do as they please and rule however they wished. This is, in fact, something that people expected and demanded from the Prophet himself, as God recounts in the verse: They say, ‘We will not believe you until you make a spring gush forth for us from the ground. Or until you have a garden of date palms and vines and you make streams gush through it. Or until you cause the sky to fall in fragments upon us, just as you would aver. Or until you bring Allah and the angels in front of us. Or until you have a house of gold, or you ascend into the sky. And we will not believe your ascension until you bring down for us a book that we may read.’ Say, ‘Immaculate is my Lord! Am I anything but a human, a messenger?’ ().
Note that Noah also said, ‘neither do I know the Unseen.’ He did not say, ‘neither do I claim to know the Unseen.’ This is because this is a type of knowledge that must be kept secret and not announced to people. The statement, ‘Nor do I claim to know the Unseen’, does not negate the speaker’s access to such knowledge, it merely denies that he has made any claims to it. Instead, the speaker must say, ‘neither do I know the Unseen’ to deny that he possesses any such knowledge. This is in contrast to ‘I do not say to you that I possess the treasuries of Allah’ and ‘I do not claim to be an angel.’ Note also that he did not repeat ‘to you’, because it was sufficient to mention this only once.
God commanded His Prophet Muhammad to address his people in the same fashion Noah addressed his. The full significance of this further illuminated when He said, Say, ‘I do not say to you that I possess the treasuries of Allah, nor do I know the Unseen, nor do I say to you that I am an angel. I follow only what is revealed to me.’ Say, ‘Are the blind one and the seer equal? So do you not reflect?’ ()
Consider His saying, ‘I do not say to you that I possess the treasuries of Allah…’, then consider His saying, ‘I follow only what is revealed to me’, and finally consider His saying, “ Say, ‘Are the blind one and the seer equal? So do you not reflect?’ The first negates the superiority that most people expect from their prophet, the second affirms for the messenger only the message itself, and the third proceeds to establish superiority from a perspective that is distinct from the one that people expect. This superiority is that the Prophet sees with the sight of God Almighty such that, in relation to him, others are like the blind compared to the one who sees. This is the rationale for why they must follow him, just as the blind follows the seeing, and this gives him the authority to call them to follow him.
Discourse
The discussion “On the Capabilities of the Prophets and Awliyāʾ: A Qurʾanic-Philosophical Discussion” appears here in the printed volume. Read it in the Al-Mizan App.
Commentary continues:
‘…neither do I say of those who are despicable in your eyes (tazdarī aʿyunu-kum) that Allah will not grant them any good—Allah knows best what is in their hearts—for then I would indeed be a wrongdoer’: According to al-Rāghib:
‘The verb zirāya (from which tazdarī is derived) means to criticize someone, while azraya means to belittle or ridicule them, as does izdirā. Tazdarī aʿyunu-kum means to treat them with disdain and contempt.’
This section of Noah’s discourse is a reference to the beliefs held by the elite disbelievers among his people, who established a tradition of aristocracy and sovereignty. They believed that human individuals are divided into two categories: the powerful and the weak. The powerful are those who have wealth and resources, while the weak are everyone else. The powerful are the leaders in the human community, enjoying blessings and honor. They are the reason for the formation of the community, and those who are weak exist only to serve them. They are meant to be subject of their benefits, like the subjects of an absolute government, like slaves to masters, like servants and workers to their employers, and women to men. In the end, every weak person is weak relative to the strong, who rule over them.
In summary, their belief was that the weak in society are degraded humans or animals in human form. They are included in society and share in life so that the aristocrats can benefit from their labour. They are deprived of dignity, excluded from the realm of nobility, and hopeless of mercy and care.
This was their perception and what their society was based on. Noah refuted this belief by saying, “ neither do I say of those who are despicable in your eyes that Allah will not grant them any good
He highlighted the error in their belief by saying, ‘Allah knows best what is in their hearts.’ This means that your eyes scorn them and belittle them due to the apparent weakness they exhibit. However, this is not the decisive factor for acquiring goodness or attaining honor. The essential factor, especially regarding divine honors and rewards, is the state of the soul and its adornment with virtues and moral values. Neither you nor I have access to the inner realities of souls and the secrets of hearts except God. Therefore, it is not for you or me to decide that they are deprived of goodness and happiness.
He further clarified this by saying, for then I would indeed be a wrongdoer, which provides the reason why he avoids making such pronouncements. The implication is that such a pronouncement would be one made out of ignorance. Furthermore, to deny the possibility of good coming to someone who might deserve it, without any proof for this, is an injustice which no human should dare to commit, as this alone would be sufficient to classify them as a wrongdoer.
This is what God alludes to when recounting the words of the People of the Elevations on the Day of Judgement, addressing these transgressors, saying, “ And the occupants of the Elevations will call out to certain men whom they recognise by their marks, ‘Your rallying did not avail you, nor what you used to disdain. Are these the ones concerning whom you swore that Allah will not extend them any mercy?’ ()
When Noah says in his speech, neither do I say of those who are despicable in your eyes … he indirectly implies that, as they deny the weaker members of the community certain key societal benefits, they similarly deny them spiritual dignity, claiming that these weaker members cannot achieve happiness through religion. According to them, only the elite and powerful members of society can attain happiness. Through, through this statement, Noah also implies that they are, in fact, the wrongdoers.
Noah responds to his people’s declaration with the words, I do not say to you that I possess the treasuries of Allah, neither do I know the Unseen. I do not claim to be an angel… In doing so, he denies all claims of superiority they expect from a messenger on his own behalf. He does the same by saying, neither do I say of those who are despicable in your eyes that Allah will not grant them any good, even though this refers to the weaker believers among his people, because the elite counted him amongst them when they said, Nor do we see that you have any merit over us ().
Thereby, he clarified that the meaning of their words was, ‘Following you and those who believe in you, these outcasts, only makes sense if there is some benefit for us in this. We see no such benefit from you. As for you, you do not possess the angelic power or knowledge of the unseen, or the purity from worldly and natural tribulations that are characteristic of a messenger. As for those who believe in you, they are the outcasts amongst us, devoid of human dignity, deprived of mercy and care.’
Noah responded to them by saying words to the effect of: ‘As for me, I do not claim any of the things you expect me to claim as a messenger of God, for the only function of the messenger is to deliver his message. As for the dispossessed whom you despise and scorn, God might see some good in their hearts and grant them goodness and grace for that reason, for He knows their hearts better than anyone. The true measure of religious dignity and divine mercy lies in the purity of the soul and the integrity of the heart, rather than in the outward appearance that your eyes disparage. Therefore, I will not say, “Allah will not grant them any good,” for that would be an injustice that would place me among the wrongdoers.’
قَالُوا يَا نُوحُ قَدْ جَادَلْتَنَا فَأَكْثَرْتَ جِدَالَنَا فَأْتِنَا بِمَا تَعِدُنَا إِنْ كُنْتَ مِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ ٣٢
(11:32) They said, ‘O Noah, you have disputed with us already, and you have disputed with us exceedingly. Now bring us what you threaten us with should you be truthful.’
This is something they told Noah after they were unable to refute his argument or invalidate the truth to which he called them. It is a statement laden with challenge and provocation. When they say, ‘Now bring us what you threaten us with’, they are referring to the punishment of a painful day (), of which he had warned them at the beginning of his mission.
Note that God reports their statement independently, without introducing it with a preposition such as fa (‘so’), which would indicate that it followed on from what Noah had told them. This is because they only said it after Noah had spent a long period amongst them calling them to monotheism, arguing, and engaging them in theological disputes until he had eliminated all their excuses and had made the truth clear to them, as indicated by God’s words recounting Noah’s prayers: He said, ‘My Lord! Indeed I have summoned my people night and day… Again I summoned them aloud, and again appealed to them publicly and confided with them privately (). And as God recounts in Sūrah al-ʿAnkabūt, Certainly We sent Noah to his people, and he remained with them for a thousand-less-fifty years (). Thus, what God has reported about Noah’s arguments with his people and their responses all transpired over a span of centuries. This is a common feature of the Qurʾanic discourse and not an anomaly. The one who narrates this is God, who encompasses all of time and everything within it, and the one who receives this narration through revelation is the Prophet who has been granted such a breadth of vision that he can see the variances of nations and the ends of time.
Therefore, the meaning of their statement is, ‘O Noah, you have debated with us and prolonged the argument until we have grown weary and bored, and we are not going to believe in you. So, bring us the punishment with which you have threatened us!’ They do not admit their inability to counter his arguments or engage in a debate with him. Instead, they give up all hope of arguing against him and demand instead that he occupy himself with what occupies a preacher who has lost hope of being heard and obeyed by his audience. This matter is the harm with which he threatens them and mentions beyond his moral exhortations.
قَالَ إِنَّمَا يَأْتِيكُمْ بِهِ اللَّهُ إِنْ شَاءَ وَمَا أَنْتُمْ بِمُعْجِزِينَ ٣٣
(11:33) He said, ‘Allah will indeed bring it on you if He wishes, and you cannot thwart’
When Noah’s people told him, ‘Now bring us what you threaten us with should you be truthful’, they were demanding that he bring down God’s punishment upon them. However, as he was only a messenger, his response to this demand was, in all humility, that he did not have the power to bring down this punishment upon them, rather this was something only God could do. It is God who is sovereign over their affairs, and only He can bring down the punishment that Noah had warned them of by God’s command. After all, God is their lord and their affair devolves to Him; Noah has no power over the direction of any aspect of their existence. In fact, even Noah’s warnings of divine punishment and their impertinent demand that he bring them this punishment have no effect on God’s power and authority. If God wills it, He will bring the punishment, and if He does not, it will not happen.
From here, it becomes evident that his saying ‘if He wishes’ is among the most subtle qualifications in this context. This is insofar as it establishes the perfection and transcendence of God, indicating that nothing governs Him and no one has any power or influence over Him whatsoever. He does as He wills, and no one else except Him has such power. This is analogous to what comes later in the chapter, in the exception found in His saying, As for the felicitous, they will be in paradise. They will remain in it for as long as the heavens and the earth endure—except what your Lord may wish—an endless bounty ().
As for when Noah says, ‘…and you cannot thwart’, this is another declaration of God’s perfection and transcendence. At the same time, it is a response to the challenge they directed to Noah. On the surface, it seems they were not concerned with the punishment he threatened them with, as if they were invincible and beyond his reach.
وَلَا يَنْفَعُكُمْ نُصْحِي إِنْ أَرَدْتُ أَنْ أَنْصَحَ لَكُمْ إِنْ كَانَ اللَّهُ يُرِيدُ أَنْ يُغْوِيَكُمْ ۚ هُوَ رَبُّكُمْ وَإِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ ٣٤
(11:34) My exhorting (nuṣḥī) will not benefit you, much as I may seek to exhort you, if Allah desires to consign you to perversity (ghayy). He is your Lord, and to Him you shall be brought back.’
In his Mufradāt, al-Rāghib writes:
‘Nuṣḥ (‘exhortation’) refers to actions or words that are conducive to the wellbeing of one’s companion. One can also say naṣaḥtū la-hu al-wadd (‘I acted in good faith towards him’) when one has been pure in one’s friendship to another. By the same token, pure honey can be described with the adjective nāṣiḥ, derived from the same root. Equally, one can use the verb naṣaḥa for stitching leather together, and the noun nāṣiḥ denotes a tailor (khayyāṭ) and nuṣāḥ the act of stitching (khayṭ).’
He also says:
‘Ghayy (‘peversity’) means to act foolishly on the basis of erroneous beliefs. This is because foolishness (jahl) may arise from a person without any specific belief, neither correct or incorrect. It may also arise from holding onto a corrupt belief, and in this second context, it is referred to as ghayy. As God Almighty says, your companion has neither gone astray, nor gone amiss (ghawā) (), and But their brethren, they draw them into error (ghayy) ().’
Based on this, the distinction between ighwāʾ and iḍlāl (both of which can be understood in the sense of ‘to lead astray’) is that the latter means to divert someone from the right path while the correct objective remains in the person’s mind, whereas ighwāʾ is to divert them from it while also causing the correct objective to be forgotten due to the person becoming preoccupied with something else out of ignorance.
The terms ‘will’ (irāda) and ‘wish’ (mashiyya) are often used synonymously with regard to the Divine Will, which is what emanates from God in the form of empowering causes to inevitably give rise to the existence of something. Thus, when something is willed by God, He completes all the prerequisites for its existence, making its existence an inevitability. The principle of causality is an act of the Divine Will in itself. Therefore, it is said that God created things through His will and His will through Himself.
On the whole, when Noah says, ‘My exhorting will not benefit you’, this represents one side of an equivocation, while the other half is ‘you cannot thwart.’ It is as though he is saying, ‘Your affair is up to God. If He wills to punish you, He will inflict the punishment upon you, and nothing can repel His punishment or override His will. Therefore, you cannot thwart Him, nor will my exhortations avail you—if I wish to advise you—once God intends to lead you astray to disbelieve in Him, thus fulfilling upon you the decree of punishment. Noah’s advice is contingent because they did not concede that he was advising them.
The term ighwāʾ is used in a similar fashion to iḍlāl, save for the fact that it cannot be attributed to God from the outset, although it is possible to attribute it to Him as a form of recompense, such as when a person disobeys Him and therefore becomes deserving of misguidance. In this situation, God deprives them of access to the means of guidance, leaving them to devices, and thereby leading them astray from the path of truth. As God says, Thereby He leads many astray, and thereby He guides many; and He leads no one astray thereby except the transgressors ().
This passage suggests that before God sent down His punishment of annihilation upon them, He first led them astray. This is also what is suggested by the verse, And when We desire to destroy a town We command its affluent ones (to obey Allah). But they commit transgression in it, and so the word becomes due against it, and We destroy it utterly (); and also the verse, We have assigned them companions who make to seem decorous to them whatever is before them and whatever is behind them, and the word became due against them ().
When Noah says, ‘He is your Lord, and to Him you shall be brought back’, this provides the rationale behind his previous statement, My exhorting will not benefit you … or to the passage Allah will indeed bring it on you if He wishes … if Allah desires to consign you to perversity (). The meaning is that the management of the servants’ affairs belongs to the Lord, to whom all matters will return. God, glory be to Him, is your Lord, and to Him, you will return. Therefore, it is not up to me to bring you the promised punishment, and it is not up to you to thwart Him if He wills to bring you the punishment and decides to annihilate you completely, and it is not up to my advice to benefit you if He wants to lead you astray to punish you.
A number of different explanations have been offered for the statement, if Allah desires to consign you to perversity:
1) Some say that it means: ‘If God desires to punish you for your disbelief.’ The Qurʾan occasionally uses the term ghayy to denote punishment, as in the verse, So they will soon encounter perversity (ghayy) ().
2) Others have said it means: ‘If God desires to punish you for leading others astray and misguiding them.’ This is because it was the habit of the Arabs to name a punishment after the thing it was supposed to punishment. We can observe this device in the verse, It is Allah who derides them ()—meaning He punishes them for their derision; and in the verse, Then they plotted, and Allah also plotted ()—in other words, He punished them for their plotting. And there are many other examples of this.
3) Still others have said that, consign you to perversity, means: ‘If God intends to destroy you.’ This reading of ghayy relies on an alternate meaning of the word, which denotes when a calf becomes ill from the overconsumption of milk.
4) Another explanation of the phrase is that the people of Noah believed that God intentionally led His servants astray from the right religion, and that their existing state was the result of God’s will. They thought that if God had willed otherwise, He would change their condition and compel them to the contrary. In response to this belief, Noah states, as if in astonishment and denial of their claim, ‘My exhorting will not benefit you if it is indeed as you say.’
However, the reader who ponders on what we have presented above will note that the verse does not require such explanations.
أَمْ يَقُولُونَ افْتَرَاهُ ۖ قُلْ إِنِ افْتَرَيْتُهُ فَعَلَيَّ إِجْرَامِي وَأَنَا بَرِيءٌ مِمَّا تُجْرِمُونَ٣٥
(11:35) Do they say, ‘He has fabricated it?’ Say, ‘Should I have fabricated it, then my guilt (ijrām) will be upon me, and I am absolved of your guilty conduct (mā tujrimūn).’
According to al-Rāghib: ‘Jurm originally meant to cut the fruit from trees. Ijrām means to acquire an offence, and the terms came to denote every form of ill-gotten gain. Therefore, jurm and jarm both mean an ill-gotten gain or a sin.’
This verse is intended to serve as a counter-argument. It is very interesting to note that Noah’s calling to his people and his arguments against their idol-worshipping, especially as presented by God in this particular chapter, greatly resemble the Prophet’s own call and arguments against the idolatry of his own people.
If you desire further confirmation of this, consider Sūrah al-Anʿām, which is in reality a chapter of argumentation, and compare what God has related about Noah in this chapter and what God bids the Prophet to do in that chapter, especially the verses: Say, ‘I do not say to you that I possess the treasuries of Allah, nor do I know the Unseen, nor do I say to you that I am an angel … Do not drive away those who supplicate their Lord morning and evening … Say, ‘I do not follow your desires, for then I will have gone astray, and I will not be among the guided.’ Say, ‘Indeed I stand on a manifest proof from my Lord and you have denied it …’ ().
In fact, you can apply all of Noah’s arguments mentioned in Sūrah Nūḥ and Sūrah al-Aʿrāf to those that have been mentioned in Sūrah al-Anʿām and the present chapter of the Qurʾan to confirm this thesis.
Given this similarity and relevance, it makes sense that, after recounting the arguments used by Noah when warning his people by God’s command, the focus shifts to the accusations they levelled against the Prophet of fabricating lies about God. The Prophet’s warnings and arguments were no different to those that Noah conveyed to his own people. Just as a king’s messenger warns his own people and the rebels amongst them who refuse to obey the sovereign by offering them advice and clear evidence. When they accuse him of fabricating lies about the king, and that they owe him no obedience or loyalty, he responds by advising them again, reminding them of the story of another genuine messenger sent by the king to a different group. This messenger gave the same advice he had, but his people did not heed it and were destroyed as a result. Every time he presents his arguments and warnings to them, he is moved to remember their accusation that he is fabricating lies, expressing his regret, saying, ‘You accuse me of falsehood, yet I have only conveyed to you the wisdom and advice that this other messenger imparted to his people. If I have fabricated it, my sin is on me and you can refuse to accept my word, but I am not responsible for your actions.’
God returns to this method of disputation later in the same chapter, after narrating stories of several messengers, where He says: Whatever We relate to you of the accounts of the messengers are those by which We strengthen your heart, and there has come to you in this the truth and an advice and admonition for the faithful. And say to those who do not have faith, ‘Act according to your ability; we too are acting. And wait! We too are waiting’ ().
Some exegetes suggest that the verse is actually part of Noah’s story and his dialogue with his people. In other words: ‘Do Noah’s people claim he fabricated it? Say, O Noah, “Should I have fabricated it, then my guilt will be upon me, and I am absolved of your guilty conduct.”’ According to this reading, the speech contains a transition from the third person to the direct address, but this does not accord with the context of the verses.
When he says, ‘I am absolved of your guilty conduct’, this is an affirmation of their ongoing guilt having been confronted by irrefutable evidence that he is indeed a messenger of God. There is also an affirmation of their guilt in the previous statement, then my guilt will be upon me. After all, if what Noah has mentioned as arguments were indeed fabricated, it would have been a lie from the perspective that Noah did not actually make these arguments to his people, even if they are true. However, from the perspective that these are rational arguments that are definitive and irrefutable, they affirm for these disbelievers a constant guilt in their rejection of what would lead them to faith and good deeds. They are definitively guilty in their deviation from these arguments, and the Prophet is not definitively guilty, but only under the assumption that he could be fabricating, and he is not a fabricator.
Examining Narrations
- In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, it is narrated by Ibn Abī Naṣr al-Bazanṭī from Imām al-Riḍā: ‘God said of Noah, My exhorting will not benefit you, much as I may seek to exhort you, if Allah desires to consign you to perversity. Therefore, the matter is up to God. He guides and misleads.’
Author’s comment: We have already explained this previously.
- In Tafsīr al-Burhān, regarding the verse, Do they say, ‘He has fabricated it?’ (), it is narrated from al-Shaybānī’s Nahj al-bayān, from Muqātil: ‘The disbelievers of Mecca said, “Muḥammad has invented the Qurʾan!”’ And similar reports have been narrated from Imām al-Bāqir and Imām al-Ṣādiq.