Hūd 11:32-34

qālū yā Nūḥu qad jādaltanā fa-aktharta jidālanā fa'tinā bimā taʿidunā in kunta mina'l-ṣādiqīn · qāla innamā yaʾtīkum bihi'llāhu in shāʾa wa mā antum bi-muʿjizīn · wa lā yanfaʿukum nuṣḥī in aradtu an anṣaḥa lakum in kāna'llāhu yurīdu an yughwiyakum, huwa rabbukum wa ilayhi turjaʿūn

"They said: 'Noah! You have disputed with us, and you have disputed with us at length. Bring us then what you promise us, if you are of the truthful!' · He said: 'Only God will bring it to you, if He wills; and you are not going to frustrate Him. · If God wills to let you go astray, my counsel will not profit you, however much I wish to counsel you. He is your Lord, and to Him you are returned.'"

The root was the backbone of Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin), and five occurrences were tabulated there. The concrete sense of the root — to twist a rope tight, to throw an opponent in wrestling — was treated at al-Baqara 2/197. I do not repeat it here.

The measure recorded in Ghāfir was this: "What is condemned is not disputation itself but its being carried on without any ground — bi-ghayri sulṭānin atāhum."

And the root occurs twice in Hūd, in the mouths of two different sides:

This is one of the most striking contrasts in the sūra, and it will be treated in detail at 11/74-76.

The entry that belongs here is this: in the thirty-second verse the side that counts disputation a fault is the people. The verse does not join in that assessment; it merely transmits it as having been said.

And the form of the verb must be recorded: jādalta — Form III (mufāʿala), which reports reciprocity. The people thereby concede that they too are inside the dispute.

This demand has been treated in many places across this series (al-Raʿd 13/6, al-ʿAnkabūt 29/53, Sabaʾ 34/29, al-Ṣāffāt 37/176, al-Shuʿarāʾ). I rely on that treatment.

The difference here must be recorded: the demand is tied to the lengthening of the dispute. qad jādaltanā fa-aktharta jidālanā → fa'tinā. Speech, that is, is counted finished, and the event is asked for.

I record this as an observation about the word order: the demand is not curiosity but an attempt to close a dispute.

Noah does not take to himself the authority to bring the punishment. The pattern of restriction (innamā) and the condition (in shāʾa) come together.

And this is the same limit as innamā anta nadhīr in the twelfth verse. This is an overlap that can be verified from the text.

The root ن-ص-ح. The concrete sense the lexicographers record is worth setting down: naṣaḥa is used in two senses — the first is "to be pure, unmixed" (ʿasalun nāṣiḥ — pure honey), the second "to sew, to mend a tear" (naṣaḥa'l-thawb — he sewed up the garment).

I ascribe both explanations to the lexicographers. And the word's use in the Qurʾān supports both: when Noah, Hūd and Ṣāliḥ say to their peoples "I am counselling you", they are saying that they are doing a work of mending.

And the root occurs in Sūrat Hūd only in this verse — twice in the thirty-fourth (nuṣḥī and anṣaḥa). This is a note about the text.

And the construction of the sentence must be recorded: lā yanfaʿukum nuṣḥī in aradtu an anṣaḥa lakum — "my counsel will not profit you however much I wish to counsel you". Noah, that is, ties the effect of the counsel not to his own intention but to another condition.

The root غ-و-ي: to swerve from the right way, to go astray. The root was treated at al-Najm 53/2 (mā ḍalla ṣāḥibukum wa mā ghawā) and at al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/224 (al-ghāwūn). I rely on that treatment.

And the sentence opens onto a question of divine decree. I enter a note per the method (Method) and I do not open the theological dispute.

In the classical sources two main directions are transmitted for reading the sentence:

Both readings are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

And what is to be recorded is that the sentence is in the conditional: in kāna. Noah is not announcing a ruling; he is putting a possibility into words. And the end of the sentence is not a piece of information but a reminder: huwa rabbukum wa ilayhi turjaʿūn.