Tafsir of Al-Hijr 15:15

Due to the extremity of their obstinacy, their exaggeration in denial, and their aversion to accepting the truth:

(Our eyes have been sukkurat)—meaning blocked and prevented from seeing reality, and that what we see is mere imagination with no factual basis. Abu Hatim and others narrated this from Mujahid, and it is also reported from Ibn Abbas and Qatada. Thus, it is from al-sakr (with a fatha). Abu Hayyan stated it is with a kasra, meaning "blocked and imprisoned." Ibn al-Sayyid said: al-sakr with a fatha is the blocking of a door or a river, while with a kasra, it refers to the obstruction itself, and it is pluralized as sukūr. Al-Raffa’ said: "Our singing therein has melodies of the sukūr (obstructions), when singing diminishes, and the rumbles of waterwheels." This meaning is supported by the reading of Ibn Kathir, al-Hasan, and Mujahid: (sukkurat abṣārunā) with a light kāf in the passive voice, because the lightened verb sakara (to block) is well-known in the sense of obstructing.

From ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ala’ it is said the meaning is "bewildered," derived from al-sakr (with a ḍamma), the opposite of sobriety. They interpreted this as a state that overcomes a person between them and their intellect, most commonly used in reference to intoxication. It may also occur due to anger or passionate love, as the poet said: "Drunk with the drunkenness of desire and drunk with wine, how can a youth who is drunk recover?" The tashdīd (doubling of the kāf) here is for the causative sense, because sakira (like fariḥa) is intransitive in the most common usage. It has been reported as transitive, thus serving for intensification and hyperbole. By this, they meant that their vision was corrupted and a defect occurred in its perception, just as the intellect of a drunkard is afflicted, disrupting his perception. In this interpretation, the expression contains a metaphor, as it does in the first interpretation according to some. This meaning is supported by the reading of al-Zuhri: (sakirat) with a fatha on the sīn and a kasra on the kāf, lightened and in the active voice, because the intransitive triliteral is the known form for this, and because sakara in the sense of "blocking" is known with a fatha on the kāf.

Al-Zajjaj chose the meaning that it became "calm/stilled" from perceiving truths, derived from "the wind taskuru (stills) sakran," meaning it calmed down. It is said, "a sākira night" when there is no wind in it. The doubling is for the causative. There are other opinions close in meaning. Aban ibn Taghlib read it—and it has been attributed to him due to its deviation from the script of the Mushaf, so it is considered an interpretation—as: "Our eyes have been suḥḥirat (bewitched)."

{ Nay, we are a people bewitched }

Meaning: Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) has bewitched us, just as they said when other dazzling miracles appeared. The apparent view, according to al-Qutb, is that they first meant "our eyes have been blocked," not our intellects; therefore, although we imagine these things with our eyes, our intellects know that the reality is otherwise. Then they shifted away from restricting it to the eyes and said: "Nay," extending it to our intellects.

Al-Zamakhshari interpreted the restriction (innama) to mean that it is nothing but this "blocking." It was objected that innama provides restriction to the latter-mentioned, and in that case, the meaning is what preceded. This is based on the premise that placing the maqṣūr (restricted) before the maqṣūr ‘alayh (that to which it is restricted) is necessary, and the opposite is impossible. However, the investigator (al-muḥaqqiq) stated in his commentary on the Talkhīṣ that it is permissible if the placement itself implies restriction, such as in our saying: "It is only Zayd whom I struck," which restricts the striking to Zayd. Abu al-Tayyib said: "His attributes did not increase my knowledge, but they are a delight we mentioned," meaning "we did not mention them except as a delight." This does not, however, benefit the case at hand.

Yes, it is reported in ‘Arūs al-Afrāḥ that the rule of the scholars of rhetoric is not universally accepted. The statement "It is only I who stood (innama qumtu)" means "nothing occurred except standing," so it restricts the act, not the end of the sentence. If the intent was to restrict the doer, the pronoun would have to be separated. He then provided several examples from the statements of exegetes indicating what they mentioned regarding the issue. Thus, it is apparent that al-Zamakhshari does not consider the rule they cited to be absolute, and they were heedless of his intent here, as al-Shihab stated.

What he transmitted from ‘Arūs al-Afrāḥ regarding innama qumtu—that it is for restricting the action and if it were for the doer, it would have to be separated—is contradicted by what is in the commentary of al-Sharifi on the Miftāḥ. He says that if the action is intended to be restricted to the implicit doer, and something related to the action is mentioned after it, the doer must be separated and delayed, as in "It is only I who struck today (innama ḍaraba al-yawma ana)." And as in the verse of al-Farazdaq: "I am the defender, the protector of the honor, and it is only I or the likes of me who defends their reputation." If it is not mentioned, both are possible: obligation, to keep the rule consistent, or non-obligation, permitting separation based on meaning and conjunction based on wording, since there is no textual separator. This is explicit that innama qumtu is for restricting the doer, even if separation is not strictly required.

However, al-Sa’d chose in his commentary the necessity of separation absolutely and ruled that the apparent meaning of innama aqūmu is "I am nothing but one who stands," as transmitted by al-Samarqandi. Abu Hayyan, along with a small group of grammarians, denied that innama indicates restriction at all. This is not relied upon by the investigators, though they said it may come for mere emphasis. The full discussion of this topic should be sought in its proper place.

Al-Shihab explained the "shifting" (iḍrāb) after stating that it places the first in the status of being "left unmentioned" rather than negated. The second is possible in that it is a shift because this is not occurring in reality, but rather through sorcery. Or, it is in consideration of what the sentence implies of continuity indicated by the nominal sentence structure; i.e., our being "bewitched" is not restricted to this state, but we are continuously in this state regarding every sign he shows us.

In this verse is a description of their obstinacy and their collusion in denial and corruption that is self-evident. In that is a confirmation of what is understood from the first verse. Ibn al-Munayyir mentioned an interpretation of it that I consider very remote; he said: "The intent, and Allah knows best, is the establishment of the argument against the deniers: that Allah Almighty willed the Quran into their hearts and entered it into their very depths, just as He willed it into the hearts of the believing, affirming ones. So, these denied it and those affirmed it, each based on knowledge and understanding, so that he who perishes may perish by clear proof and he who lives may live by clear proof; and so that the disbelievers might not have an argument against Allah that they did not understand the nature of the miracle as those who believed did. So Allah informed them, while they were in a state of respite and possibility, that they did not disbelieve except based on knowledge, as obstinate, aggressive, and inexcusable people. Therefore, He, Glory be to Him, followed it with His saying: { And if We opened for them... }—i.e., these people understood the Quran and knew the aspects of its miracle, and it entered their hearts and settled there, but they are a people whose nature is obstinacy and whose hallmark is contention, even if one were to lead them through the clearest of paths and the most inviting to faith, they would say, after the great clarification: 'Our eyes have been blocked and we are bewitched,' and these are nothing but illusions with no reality beneath them. Thus, He recorded against them that they have no excuse for denial due to lack of hearing, awareness, or reaching of the heart, or lack of understanding as others who affirmed understood, because that was present for them, and there was nothing with them except obstinacy and persistence, nothing else." Consider this, and Allah is the Guide to the straight path.