Tafsir of Hud 11:24

(The Parable of the Two Parties)—meaning the two aforementioned parties of the believers and the disbelievers—that is, their wondrous state.

The original meaning of mathal (parable) is a counterpart or equivalent, then it was metaphorically applied to a statement whose application is compared to its origin. It is only used for matters that possess strangeness, becoming a conventional reality for such. From here, it is borrowed for stories, states, and strange attributes.

(As the blind and the deaf, and the seeing and the hearing)—that is, like the state of one who combines blindness and deafness, and one who combines sight and hearing. There are two similes here: The first is a simile of the state of the disbelievers—who are described as acting blind and deaf toward the signs of Allah—to the state of someone created blind and deaf, who cannot be helped by explanation or gesture. The second is a simile of the state of those who believed and performed righteous deeds—benefiting from their hearing and sight by being guided to Paradise and turning away from the darkness of disbelief in which they were previously stumbling—to the state of one who is seeing and hearing, who is illuminated by lights in the darkness and sheltered by the spoils of warnings and good news, thereby winning his goal. The use of the conjunction (wa) is to treat the disparity of the attributes as equivalent to the disparity of the entities, as in the saying: "Oh, the grief of the shepherd, the harvester, the gatherer, and the returner."

It is possible there are multiple similes, by considering the state of each of the two parties—the disbelieving party and the believing party—in relation to two things. That is, the disbeliever is like the blind, and is also like the deaf; and the believer is like the seeing, and is also like the hearing. It may also be considered that each of the two parties is divided into two types: a type of disbeliever is likened to the blind, and another type to the deaf; a type of believer is likened to the seeing, and another to the hearing. However, this is far-fetched, as dividing the disbelievers into those likened to the former and those likened to the latter—and similarly for the believers—is not intended at all. This is evidenced by similar instances in other verses, such as His saying, "Are the blind and the deaf equal?" and His saying, "Allah has set a seal upon their hearts" regarding the pure disbelievers, and "Deaf, dumb, and blind" regarding the hypocrites. The verse, in all its possibilities, has a partial resemblance to the saying of Imru’ al-Qais: "As if the hearts of birds, fresh and dry, near their nests, were jujubes and withered dates." Consider this carefully.

The simile may also be considered as "representative" (tamthili), wherein one extracts from the state of the first party—in their deafness and blindness, and their subsequent falling into doubled punishment and loss beyond which there is no greater loss—an image extracted from one who lacks the senses of sight and hearing, stumbling in his path, falling into the chasms of destruction, and finding no way to his destination. From the state of the second party—in their proper use of their senses regarding the signs of Allah and their attainment of the Abode of Eternity—an image is extracted similar to one who possesses sight and hearing, using them in his affairs, thus being guided to his path and attaining his goal. It is not hidden that this is contrary to the apparent meaning. Perhaps the most apparent of the possibilities is what was pointed to first; the speech is of the laff wa nashr (folding and spreading) style. The "folding" is either implicit—if it is considered in the "two parties" as it is equivalent to "the disbelievers and the believers"—or explicit, if it is considered in what is indicated by His saying, "And who is more unjust than one who fabricates..." etc., and His saying, "Those who believe..." The "spreading" is apparent. It is not hidden what is contained within it of tibaq (antithesis) between "blind" and "seeing," and between "deaf" and "hearing."

The disbelievers are mentioned first: it is said this is in consideration of what preceded, and because the context is to explain their state. The blind is mentioned before the deaf because it is more manifest and well-known in terms of a miserable state. In Al-Bahr, it is stated that the structure did not come as "the blind and the seeing, and the deaf and the hearing" so that each of the counterparts would follow its opposite. For when He mentioned the obstruction of the eye, He followed it with the obstruction of the hearing; and when He mentioned the opening of the sight, He followed it with the opening of the hearing. This is the style in confrontation and the most perfect in inimitability. A similar instance will come, God willing, in His saying, "It is [promised] for you not to be hungry therein or be unclothed. And [indeed], you will not be thirsty therein or be hot from the sun."

The apparent meaning from the above is that the speech is based on the omission of a genitive (mudaf), and it is in the genitive case governed by the ka (preposition "as"). The prepositional phrase relates to an omitted predicate for "parable" (mathal).

It is also permitted that the ka itself is the predicate for an initial noun (mubtada), its meaning being the meaning of "parable," and there is no need to assume a genitive. That is: "The parable of the two parties is the [parable of the] blind and the deaf, and the seeing and the hearing."

(Are they equal?)—meaning the two mentioned parties. The interrogation is one of denial, reminding [the audience] of what has already passed regarding the denial of equivalence in His saying, "Is he who is upon clear evidence from his Lord..." etc.

(In parable?)—meaning in state and attribute. Its accusative case is as a tamyiz (specification) transferred from the subject. The origin is: "Are their parables equal?" Ibn Atiyyah permitted it to be a hal (state), but that is weak.

(Then will you not remember?)—meaning: Do you doubt the lack of equality and the disparity between them? Or are you heedless of it, failing to remember it by reflecting on the parable mentioned to you? The hamza is for interrogative denial, directed at both conjuncts. Or is it: "Do you hear this, yet you do not remember?" Thus the denial is directed at the lack of remembrance after the realization of what necessitates it—which is the parable provided. That is: "Will you not perform remembrance?" or "Do you not understand?" The meaning of denying the lack of remembrance is to consider it unlikely for the addressees, and that it is something that should not occur. It is not in the category of denial found in "Is he who is upon clear evidence from his Lord?" and "Are they equal?" for those are for the negation of equivalence and the negation of equality.