Tafsir of Yunus 10:42

This is an explanation of their hearts being sealed, such that there is no path for their belief. "And among them" (wa-minhum) is a predicate occurring before its subject. It is either a relative pronoun (mawsul) or an indefinite noun qualified by an adjective, and the sentence following it is either the relative clause or the adjective. The pronoun referring back to it is plural in consideration of the meaning, just as it is singular later in consideration of the grammatical form. Perhaps this is to hint at the large number of listeners, based on the fact that listening does not depend on the customary or rational conditions required for seeing.

The meaning is: Among the deniers are those—or there are people—who incline their ears to the Quran or to your speech when you teach the laws, and the words reach their ears, yet they do not benefit from them nor do they accept them, just like the deaf who do not hear.

"Can you make the deaf hear?"—that is, are you capable of making them hear, "even if they do not use their intellect?" (42). This means: even if their deafness is compounded by a lack of intellect. For a deaf person who possesses intellect may sometimes perceive something if a clamor reaches his inner ear, but when both the loss of hearing and the loss of intellect are combined, the matter is finalized. They are likened to the deaf who have no intellect, despite being rational beings, because their intellects have been afflicted by the blight of opposing illusions and the disease of habit and imitation. Hence, it became difficult for them to grasp the meanings of the Quran, the subtle rulings, and the realization of elegant and exquisite wisdom. Thus, they did not benefit from the recitation of the words to them any more than beasts benefit from the speech of a herder.

The advancement of the subject in "Can you..." (a-fa-anta) serves to emphasize, according to al-Sakkaki, and to mark it as a sign of specification. Thus, in advancing the semantic subject and prefacing it with the interrogative particle of denial, there is an indication that the Prophet (peace be upon him), in his zeal for the belief of these people, imagined himself capable of making them hear, or was placed in the position of one who imagined he was capable of it. Therefore, the Almighty negated this from him (peace be upon him) and affirmed it for Himself—the Almighty—exclusively. It is as if it were said: "You are not capable of making them hear; rather, We are the ones capable of it." This has been said, though there is some reservation in the heart regarding it. For this reason, the school of al-Sakkaki was chosen here, making the denial of the ability to make them hear a consequence of a suppressed, inferred conditional premise understood from the context, as has been indicated. This considers the interrogative particle to be fronted despite its delayed nature, because it necessitates the initial position; this is the school of some scholars.

It is also said that it is in its rightful place, and the fa is introduced to deny that "making them hear" follows as a result of "their listening." However, this is not by way of conjunction to the verb mentioned (the relative clause or adjective), for that would lead to a corruption of the meaning, but rather by way of conjunction to an implied verb understood from the context of the arrangement, which is not stated in its place. It is as if it were said: "Do they listen to you, so you make them hear?" Sometimes the intent is to deny the occurrence of the "making hear" immediately following that and resulting from it, as indicated by replacing their pronoun with the term "the deaf" and describing them as lacking intellect.

The answer to the "if" (law) is omitted because the preceding content indicates it. The sentence is conjoined to an implicit, contrasting sentence, and the whole is in the position of a circumstantial qualifier (hal) for the object of the previous verb. That is: "Can you make the deaf hear if they were to use their intellect, and even if they do not use their intellect?"—in the sense of: "Can you make them hear in any hypothetical case?" This is called the "connecting law" (al-law al-wasliyyah), and this is a well-known matter.

The arrival of it here has been deemed problematic because the principle is that the judgment on the condition of the realization of its object must be established, just as it is established on the condition of its non-realization, except that it is more appropriate in the case of its non-realization. Here, the matter is the opposite. It has been answered that the connection of the "connecting law" with affirmation follows the known convention; for its estimation is "You make them hear, even if they do not use their intellect," and it is apparent that making them hear while they possess intellect is by way of priority (awla). The interrogation is an affirmation in appearance—if it is viewed as such—but if it is viewed according to the denial, it is a negation in meaning; it is considered to be entering upon the whole after its connection. The same is said regarding what follows, so reflect upon it and be not heedless.