Tafsir of Ibraheem 14:43

Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) interpreted muqni‘ as "the one who raises his head," and cited the verse of Zuhayr: “Hajān (white camels) and red ones with their heads raised, and a yellow one covered with the blooming, bright flowers.” It is also said: “Aqna‘a ra’sahu” (أقنع رأسه) means he lowered and bowed his head; thus, it is among the addād (words with opposite meanings). Al-Mubarrad stated that the meaning of "raising" is more recognized in the language. It is said that the first meaning—qani‘a (قنع)—refers to when a man is satisfied with what he has, as if he has raised his head away from asking. It is sometimes said that it comes from the second meaning—as if he lowered his head and did not raise it to ask, nor did he look toward anything other than what he possesses.

Both descriptions are in the accusative case as states (hāl) derived from a deleted genitive (mudāf), i.e., "possessors of gazes," based on the principle that it is said "Zayd stared with his gaze," or because "the gazes" (الابصار) indicates their owners, so the state comes from the implied subject. Abu al-Baqa’ mentioned this. It is also permitted that muhti‘īn is accusative due to an implied verb, i.e., "He makes them look, hastening," and in this reading, muqni‘ī ru’ūsihim is a state derived from the hidden pronoun in muhti‘īn, making it a nested state (hāl mutadākhilah). Its genitive construction is not literal, hence it functions as a state.

Some scholars have stated that considering the state to be from the "possessors" (as mentioned first) involves clear remoteness and affectation. The most appropriate—and Allah knows best—is to make this a state intended for the object of yu’akhkhiruhum (He delays them). His saying, “The gazes shall be fixed therein” (تشخص فيه الأبصار), describes the state of all creation; hence, a nominal sentence was chosen. This is because sincere believers do not remain in that state, unlike the disbelievers who do remain in it. Thus, their state is expressed with something indicating continuity and permanence. Therefore, there is no valid objection regarding the perceived repetition between muhti‘īn and “The gazes shall be fixed therein” according to some interpretations. Similarly, the repetition between the first part and His saying, “Their gaze will not return to them,” is removed—meaning their eyelids will not move back and forth as they would every moment. The "gaze" (tarf) remains upon its original meaning, which is the movement of the eyelid; the speech is a metonymy for the eye remaining open in its state. It is permitted that the "gaze" refers to the eyelid itself metaphorically, as the movement occurs therein—i.e., their eyelids, which contain the movement of looking, will not return. Al-Jawhari said: "The tarf is the eye, and it is not pluralized because it is originally a verbal noun." Abu Hayyan also mentioned this interpretation of the verse and cited the poet: "I avert my gaze (tarf) as long as my neighbor does not appear to me, until my neighbor is hidden by her dwelling." However, what he mentioned is not definitive, as it is a metaphorical meaning for it, as is "looking" (nazar).

It is also possible that it is intended to mean their sight does not return to them so that they might look at themselves, let alone anything else; rather, they remain dumbfounded. It is not appropriate, as in al-Kashf, to imagine that "to them" (ilayhim) connects to what follows, in the sense that their look does not return to themselves (meaning they do not look at themselves), because the complement of a verbal noun cannot precede it. The issue in cases like this is disputed. As for the claim that it is not pluralized, a group has claimed it, while Abu al-Baqa’ claimed it does come in the plural form. You are aware that the necessity of repetition between muhti‘īn and “Their gaze will not return to them” is verified according to some interpretations, and it is not dispelled by considering the state to be from the object of yu’akhkhiruhum. Furthermore, this does not entirely remove the issue of repetition between “The gazes shall be fixed therein” and either of the two aforementioned states, as is clear to anyone with a sound spiritual insight.

In Irshad al-‘Aql al-Salim, it is stated that the sentence “It will not return...” is a state, or a substitute for “raising their heads,” or an inception. The meaning is that the fixedness of their gazes, which has overcome them, does not cease. Delaying it from the completion of ihti‘a and iqna‘, despite the connection between it and the mentioned fixedness, is to emphasize this meaning. It is as if he intended thereby to refute the repetition. However, there is obscurity in understanding "it does not cease" from the literal structure. Some considered the lack of stability in the "fixedness" and the lack of "gaze" here, and objected to it with the necessity of contradiction. It was answered that the second is a statement of another state: those wrongdoers sometimes do not have their eyes rest, and other times they are dumbfounded so their eyes do not blink. The two contradictory states have been placed as if they were one, due to the lack of a separator, like the words of Imru’ al-Qays: “A charger, a refuser, advancing, retreating, all at once; like a rock of granite hurled by the torrent from above.” This is necessary if one considers what was mentioned, whether one considers the "fixedness" and what follows to be conditions of the wrongdoers specifically or not. It is better not to consider in the verse that which necessitates this answer, and to choose from the interpretations that which does not necessitate explicit repetition, and to make the "fixedness of gazes" the state of all creation, and what follows the state of the delayed wrongdoers. Reflect on this.

The sentence is also in the position of a state (hāl), and its agent is either "it returns" (yartadd) or preceding agents capable of functioning as such. It is permitted that it be an independent sentence. Abu al-Baqa’ favored the first, interpreting hawā’ as "empty." He mentioned that it was used in the singular despite being a predicate for a plural, because it is in the sense of "empty" (fārighah), which can be a predicate for a plural, as one says "empty hearts" (af’idah fārighah), because the feminine tā’ indicates the feminized plural which is in af’idatuhum. Similar to this are "difficult states" (ahwāl sa‘bah) and "corrupt actions" (af‘āl fāsidah).

Our master al-Shihab said: "Hawā’ is a verbal noun, and for that reason, it is singularized; its interpretation with the active participle "empty" (khāliyah) is an explanation of the meaning intended by it, which justifies the usage, so it does not contradict the hyperbole in making that the very essence of emptiness." What comes to mind from the speech of more than one is that hawā’ is not in the sense of "void," but in the sense that which wafts into the mind without the application of the fan of thought. In al-Bahr, after listing opinions that do not conclude that the outward form is a verbal noun, he says: "The speech is pure simile, for hearts are not air in reality." It is possible that the simile is in their being empty of hope and greed for mercy, or that it is in the agitation of their hearts and their surging in the chests—that they come and go and reach the throats. This is in the meaning of what was reported earlier from Ibn Jubayr. Irshad al-‘Aql al-Salim mentions what is apparent, that the speech is also a simile, where he says, after interpreting it as we mentioned first: "As if it were the very air devoid of any preoccupation."

Furthermore, they differed regarding the timing of the occurrence of these states. It is said: at the reckoning, evidenced by its mention following His saying, “On the day the Reckoning is established.” It is said: at the answering of the caller and rising from the graves. It is said: at the departure of the blessed to Paradise and the wretched to the Fire. So remember this and do not be heedless.