Hūd 11:46

qāla yā Nūḥu innahū laysa min ahlik, innahū ʿamalun ghayru ṣāliḥ, fa-lā tasʾalni mā laysa laka bihī ʿilm, innī aʿiẓuka an takūna mina'l-jāhilīn

"He said: 'Noah! He is not of your household; he is a deed that is not righteous. So do not ask of Me what you have no knowledge of. I counsel you not to be among the ignorant.'"

This verse is one of the sentences in the sūra that most needs dwelling on, and it holds three separate questions: the variant reading, the definition of "household", and its link with the principle of burden.

Two readings are transmitted for this sentence, and the reading changes the sense. I give it in a table:

The first reading is the widespread one (that of the majority). The second is also transmitted in the sources for the variant readings; it is widely attributed to al-Kisāʾī. I give this attribution with a hedge, with the note "this is how it is widely reported", and I claim no certainty.

The difference between the two readings must be recorded:

And both readings arrive at the same conclusion: the separation is not by lineage but by deed. The difference is in how the separation is expressed.

I do not impose a preference. But I enter a note about the language, and it is my own reading: the first reading is a structure used in Arabic for intensification — naming a person by a verbal noun or by a noun (as in "he is justice itself"). The first reading, that is, can also be read as a more emphatic form of the second. This is an explanation, not a ruling.

The root أ-ه-ل: to belong to a place or a person; to settle. Ahl — those who belong to a house, a work, a place.

And over what the sentence says there is disagreement in the classical sources. I give it in a table:

The third view is transmitted but is counted weak, and it strains against the wording of the verse: in the forty-second verse Noah called him yā bunayya, and in the forty-fifth said ibnī ("my son"); the verse does not correct either expression.

I pass on the first and second readings without imposing a preference. And what they have in common must be recorded: in both, lineage does not determine the scope.

A note, per the rule: on the basis of this verse various accounts about Noah's family have been produced in the classical sources and in the later literature. These are not in the Qurʾān; they are not passed on in this commentary.

The principle of burden was treated at Fāṭir 35/18, and it was recorded there that the principle is tested at its most demanding point. I rely on that treatment. The table there was this:

And in the Fāṭir section this entry was made: "The clause dhā qurbā (a near relative) names the most natural place in the world for a load to be shared. By saying that even there it is not shared, the verse builds the principle at its most durable point."

Hūd 11/46 is the application of that same principle inside an event. And a comparison of the two texts must be recorded:

And the difference must be recorded: in Fāṭir the one who asks is the person carrying the load; in Hūd the one who asks is speaking on another's behalf.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is how the two texts are built: Fāṭir builds the principle from the side of what cannot be carried; Hūd shows the same principle from the side of what cannot be interceded for. The principle works, that is, in both directions: no one can carry another's load, and no one can lighten that load for another.

And there is another entry on the same line across this series: in al-Taḥrīm the wives of Noah and of Lot were treated as an example that nearness does not deliver. I rely on that treatment. Hūd 11/46 is the same principle shown by way of a son.

And the second half of the verse does work distinct from the first: it is a warning about method.

The subject of the prohibition must be recorded: what is forbidden is not asking but asking without knowledge. The sentence does not end at lā tasʾalnī; there is the qualification mā laysa laka bihī ʿilm.

And this ties back to the command in the thirty-seventh verse: wa lā tukhāṭibnī fi'lladhīna ẓalamū.

The two prohibitions are different, and that difference must be recorded. I record this as my own reading: in the forty-fifth verse Noah is not counted as having broken the prohibition of the thirty-seventh — because he did not know that his son was among "those who do wrong". And the warning of the forty-sixth verse lands exactly here: a lack of knowledge.

And the same principle was treated at al-Kahf 18/68 (wa kayfa taṣbiru ʿalā mā lam tuḥiṭ bihī khubrā) and this entry was made there: "the withholding of judgement where knowledge is lacking." I rely on that treatment and record that Hūd 11/46 stands on the same line.

The root و-ع-ظ: to counsel, to admonish.

And the construction of the sentence must be recorded: aʿiẓuka an takūna mina'l-jāhilīn — "I counsel you not to be among the ignorant."

In Arabic this structure reports a warning against an outcome; it does not say that the person already bears that attribute.

I give this as a grammatical note and set a limit per the method (Method): no ruling of fault regarding a prophet is to be drawn from this verse. The wording of the verse is a caution, not a characterisation.

And the forty-seventh verse confirms this: Noah withdraws at once.