Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:18

These descriptors are plural forms indicating abundance, on the scale of fu‘l. It is the standard morphological pattern for the plural of adjectives in the forms fa‘la’ (feminine) and af‘al (masculine), regardless of whether they correlate—like ahmar (red) and hamra’—or occur in isolation due to a natural defect—like ghurl (uncircumcised) and ratq (imperforate). If the adjective is common but does not follow the system of ahmar and hamra’, such as rajul aliy (an impotent man) and imra’ah ‘ajza’ (a feeble woman), then the weight is merely heard (sama‘i).

Samm (deafness) is an ailment in the ear that prevents hearing. Physicians state: it is when the ear canal is created without a cavity containing the stagnant air through which sound waves travel, or it has a cavity, but the nerve does not convey the power of sensation. If it conveys it with difficulty, they term it tarash (hardness of hearing). Its root signifies hardness or obstruction; hence, they say "a solid (samma’) canal" and "the bottle was sealed (summat)."

Bukm (dumbness) is the plural of abkam—both in weight and meaning—which is an ailment in the tongue preventing speech. It is said: the abkam is one born mute. It is also said: it is one who understands nothing and is not guided to what is correct, in which case it is an ailment of the heart, not the tongue.

‘Ama (blindness) is the absence of sight from one whose nature it is to see. It is said: it is a darkness in the eye that prevents the perception of visible things. Some apply this metaphorically to the absence of insight, while others deem it a literal reality.

These are predicates for an omitted subject, which is the pronoun representing the hypocrites, or it is a single predicate. It denotes their failure to accept the truth. Although they possess hearing ears, eloquent tongues, and seeing eyes, because they did not incline toward the truth, their tongues refused to utter its manifestations, and they did not contemplate the signs of guidance set forth in the horizons and within their own selves, they were described with these attributes of deafness, dumbness, and blindness. This is in the vein of the poet’s saying: “Blind, when my neighbor emerges, until the veil hides her from my sight; Deaf to what occurred between them—my ears and her hearing are both obstructed.”

This is considered a "sublime metaphor" (tashbih baligh) by the researchers because both parts are mentioned as a judgment. Mentioning both parts explicitly and intentionally, according to them, precludes it from being a [simple] metaphor. Some argue it is a metaphor, while others allow for both possibilities. This is an settled matter, and further discussion here holds little utility, except that they raised a point: there is no dispute that the estimation is "they are deaf," etc., but in that case, the musta‘ar lahu (the subject to which the attribute is borrowed) is not explicitly mentioned [in the grammar of the verse itself]. Since it is to explain the conditions of the hypocrites’ senses, these qualities are an explicit consequential metaphor (isti‘arah tabaiyyah musarrahah). Unless it is said: the comparison of the essences of the hypocrites to the essences of deaf people is branched off from the comparison of their state to deafness, and the intention to establish this branch is stronger and more eloquent. It is as if the similarity between the two states extended to the two essences. Thus, the verse is interpreted upon this comparison out of regard for exaggeration. Or, it may be said—and perhaps this is better—that the implied subject refers to the hypocrites whose prior state and qualities were mentioned, becoming a byword for them, so it is as if it were said: "These people, characterized by what you see, are deaf..." based on the idea that the musta‘ar lahu is what is contained in the pronoun [of the preceding verses], and the musta‘ar (the borrowed term) is what is contained in samm and its two siblings. Thus, the covered matter is revealed, and this is not far-fetched.

The verse is a summary of what preceded and its result. It is known from His saying "they do not perceive" and "they do not see" that they are "deaf, blind." From the fact that they lie, it is known they do not speak the truth, so they are like the dumb. From the fact that they are not guided, it is known they "do not return."

Deafness is mentioned first because, if congenital, it necessitates dumbness. Blindness is mentioned last because, as it is said, it encompasses the blindness of the heart that results from the path of visible objects and external senses; in this sense, it is delayed because it is purely intellectual. Even if it were placed in between, it would act as a barrier between the staff and its bark. If it were placed earlier, it might suggest it relates [only] to "they do not see." Or, the order follows the state of the person being represented: he first hears the call to truth, then answers and acknowledges, then contemplates and gains insight.

Such a sentence sometimes appears with the fa (e.g., “...and We completed them with ten, so the term of his Lord was completed forty nights”) and sometimes without it (e.g., “...a fast of three days during Hajj and seven when you return; those are ten complete”). This is because the necessity of what preceded and its inclusion [of the subsequent phrase] in potency is treated as being identical to it; thus, the conjunction is omitted. Its differentiation and its succession—following the order of a result and branch from its origin—require the attachment of the fa, which is the common and known usage.

Some people consider the verse to be part of the [original] parable, in which case there is no need for figurative language; the assumption is sufficient, even if it is customarily impossible, like the saying: “Rubies placed upon spears of chrysolite.” Here, one assumes the occurrence of deafness, dumbness, and blindness for the one who has fallen into those intense, complete darknesses. It is said that the loss of senses for one who has fallen into terrifying, massive darkness is not far-fetched, as it might lead to death, let alone that.

That it is a completion of the [parable] is supported by the recitation of Ibn Mas‘ud and Hafsa, the Mother of the Believers (may Allah be pleased with them), as summan, bukman, ‘umyan (in the accusative case). In that case, the descriptors can be a second object of taraka (He left), with "in darknesses" being connected to it, or it may be in the place of a circumstantial qualifier (hal), and "they do not see" being a circumstantial qualifier, or they are accusative as a hal from the object of taraka—if it takes two objects or one—or they are accusative by an omitted verb, meaning "I mean."

The statement that it is accusative as a hal from the pronoun in "they do not see" is ignorance of the hal. Similar to it in its reprehensibility is the one who makes them accusative [to express] condemnation; that is only appropriate where the previous noun is mentioned. As for making this sentence, according to the famous recitation, an invocation—containing a sign to what will occur in the Hereafter, as in His saying: “And We will gather them on the Day of Resurrection on their faces—blind, dumb, and deaf”—we ask Allah for pardon and well-being from committing such an act, and we seek refuge in Him from the blindness and ignorance of its speaker. It is even more grievous and bitter to say that the sentence "they do not return" is of the same nature. The object of "they do not return" is omitted; that is, they do not return to guidance after they sold it, or from misguidance after they purchased it. It may also not be estimated at all and left absolute.

The first two perspectives are built upon the view that the point of comparison in the parable is deduced from "those are they who purchased..." and the last one is based on the assumption that it is from "Allah took away their light," meaning that after the illumination, they stumbled in darkness and were stranded in confusion. The meaning here is that they are in the position of the confused ones who remained frozen in their places, not budging, not knowing whether to advance or retreat, and how they could return to where they started. The blind does not see a path, the dumb does not ask about it, and the deaf does not hear a sound from the direction of his return so he could be guided by it. The fa serves to indicate that their characterization by what preceded is the cause of their confusion and entrapment, whatever their state may be.

[In the sense of the inner mysteries]: Deaf to the sounds of communion and the truths of the inspiration of nearness, dumb regarding the definition of the maladies of their inner selves to the physicians of the hearts—what a wonder!—blind to seeing the lights of the beauty of the Truth in the countenances of His saints. My master al-Junayd (may his secret be sanctified) said: "They were deaf to understanding what they heard, dumb regarding expressing what they knew, and blind to the insight regarding that to which they were called."