Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:7

(Allah has set a seal upon their hearts, and upon their hearing, and upon their vision is a veil, and for them is a great punishment.)

This points to a limmi (a priori) proof for the preceding judgment, just as the phrase "it is all the same to them, etc.," constitutes an inni (a posteriori) proof, assuming the latter is a refutation. Thus, the sealing (khatm) and veiling (tashiyah) are effects of the disbelief itself and the committing of sins; they are the causes for the continuation of non-belief or for the equality of warning versus not warning. The interruption occurs because it is a question regarding the cause of the judgment.

Khatm (sealing) means marking with a seal or similar object, and the resulting impression. It is used metaphorically: sometimes for securing something and preventing it from being accessed, based on the prevention obtained by sealing books and doors; sometimes for obtaining an effect from an effect, based on the impression produced; and sometimes it implies reaching the end, as in "I have sealed (finished) the Quran."

Gishawah (a veil), according to the seven reciters, is with a kasra on the ghayn—derived from ghisha’ (a covering), meaning he covered it. Abu Ali said: "No verb was heard from it except those with a ya." They said it is substituted for a ya according to him, or perhaps it has two roots. For Al-Zajjaj, the pattern fa'ala signifies something that encompasses a thing, like lifafah (wrapper/shroud). From this come the names of crafts, such as khiyata (sewing), because it encompasses what is within it, as well as things that take possession of something, like khilafah (caliphate). According to Al-Raghib, it is for that by which an action is performed, like the wrapping in a lifafah. If it is used for something else, it is by way of analogy. Some distinguish between words with the feminine ha and those without; the former is a name for the tool with which a thing is done, like hizam (belt) and imam, while the latter is for that which encompasses and surrounds a thing.

The Zahiris took the sealing and veiling as literal, delegating the modality to the knowledge of Him who has no modality—Glory be to Him. It is narrated from Mujahid that he said: "When a servant sins, the heart is constricted like this—and he closed his little finger—then when he sins again, he closes like this—and he closed the ring finger—and so on until the thumb. Then he said: 'This is the sealing, the stamping, and the rayn (rust).'" In my view, this is irrational.

The view adopted by the verifiers (al-muhaqqiqun) is that the sealing is borrowed from the striking of a signet ring upon vessels or the like, to create a state in the heart and hearing that prevents the truth from penetrating them, just as the impression of a signet ring prevents those vessels from receiving what is intended to be poured into them. It is a metaphor of the sensible for the intelligible, based on a rational point of intersection: the inclusion of an obstruction that prevents the receptive capacity from what it is its nature to receive. Then, the verb "to seal" (khatama) was derived from the noun khatm, constituting a dependent explicit metaphor. As for the veil, it is borrowed from its original meaning to describe a state in their vision that requires the non-attainment of the verses, and the point of intersection is what was mentioned. Thus, it is an original explicit metaphor, or a dependent one if "veil" is interpreted as a derivative or made into a tool noun, as has been said.

It is also possible that the speech contains a representative metaphor (isti'arah tamthiliyyah), such as saying: the state of their hearts, hearing, and vision—along with the resulting state that prevents them from being utilized—is likened to things prepared for utility in important interests, while being prevented from that by a seal and covering. Then, the term denoting the object of comparison is borrowed for the subject of comparison. Thus, each of the two sides of the comparison is composite, and the point of intersection is the lack of utility for that which it was prepared, due to an obstruction that could occur in it, just like the original obstruction. This is a rational concept extracted from that equipment.

Furthermore, attributing the sealing to Him—the Almighty and Majestic—is in consideration of creation, and the blame and denunciation pointed to by the verse is in consideration of the fact that this is an effect of the sins earned by the disbelievers, as indicated by His, the Almighty’s, saying: (Nay, Allah has sealed them for their disbelief). Otherwise, the denunciation and blame would be problematic regarding something that is not their action. This is what all the Sunni exegetes have said, as far as I know.

The Mu'tazilah, when they saw that the verse entails that He—the Almighty—is the one who prevents the acceptance of the truth and the hearing of it by sealing (which is an ugly act impossible for Him, the Almighty, based on their rules), committed themselves to interpretations of the verse. Al-Zamakhshari mentioned several of them, even saying: "Satan is the sealer in reality, or the disbeliever; however, since Allah—the Almighty and Majestic—is the one who empowered him or enabled him, the sealing is attributed to Him, as one attributes to a cause, such as 'The Prince built the city,' or 'a milking camel.'"

I say: The essences of possibilities are known to Him—the Almighty—eternally; they are distinct in themselves by an essential distinction, not one that is "made," because knowledge of them depends on that distinction. They have essential capacities that are also not "made," differing in their requirements. Divine knowledge relates to them, uncovering them exactly as they are in themselves in terms of the differences in their capacities, which are among the "keys to the unseen" that none knows but He, and the differences in the requirements of those capacities. When Divine Knowledge relates to them as they are—according to what their capacity requires of choosing one of the two sides, good or evil—the Divine Will relates to this choice which the servant has made according to his capacity. Thus, after the relation of the Divine Will, his choice becomes a "desired thing" for Allah—the Almighty. His eternal choice, according to his capacity, is followed by knowledge, which is followed by the Will—in consideration of Wisdom. His choice in the "future" (fi ma la yazal) is subject to the Eternal Will that relates to his choice because of what he chose.

Thus, the servants are driven to do what issues from them by their own choice, not by compulsion or force. They are not forced in their eternal choice, because it is prior in rank to the relation of knowledge, which is prior to the relation of the Will. Force is a consequence of the Will, which is a consequence of Knowledge, which is a consequence of the "known" (the ma'lum), which is here their eternal choice. Therefore, it is impossible for it to be a consequence of what is ranked after it by degrees. So, there is nothing that Allah—the Almighty—manifests according to Wisdom and bestows upon possibilities except that it is what they seek by the tongue of their capacity. He, the Almighty, did not deny them any of that, as indicated by His, the Almighty’s, saying: (He gave everything its creation), meaning that which is established for it in eternity, as required by its capacity—which is not "made," even though the temporal existential forms are "made." And His saying: (Then He inspired it with its wickedness and its righteousness), meaning those two things fixed for it in reality. All of it, from the perspective that He created it, is good, because it appears according to Wisdom from an Absolute Maker, over whom there is no ruler. This is why He, the Almighty, said: (He perfected everything He created) and (You do not see any inconsistency in the creation of the Most Merciful), meaning from the perspective that it is attributed to Him and emanated from Him, even if it differs from another perspective, and diverges when some of it is added to the others.

On this basis, the sealing from Him—the Almighty and Majestic—is a proof of the evil of their capacity, which is established in His Eternal Knowledge and is not "made." Indeed, this sealing—which is one of the requirements of the capacity—was nothing from Allah—the Almighty—except His bringing it into existence and manifesting its certainty according to what He knew of them eternally, where there is no "making." (And Allah did not wrong them)—the Almighty—in manifesting it, since it is of His attributes—the Almighty—to bestow existence upon recipients according to their capacities, as required by Wisdom, (but they used to wrong themselves), as they were, by their essence, prepared for that. Thus, it appears that attributing the sealing to Him—the Almighty—is in consideration of "bringing into existence" in reality, and the blame upon them for it is appropriate in that it indicates the evil of their capacity and the ugliness of what their beings contained in that respect. (The good land produces its vegetation with the permission of its Lord, but the bad [land] produces only with difficulty).

As for what the exegetes mentioned—that the attribution of sealing to Him—the Almighty—is "creation"—this is granted, and we have no argument with it. As for the blame being in consideration of the fact that this is an effect of what the disbelievers earned, etc., we say: If they mean by "earning" what is prevalent among the Ash'arites—that the act coincides with the servant's power without having any effect upon it at all, and that the only influencer is Allah—the Almighty—then this, besides contradicting the meaning of "earning" and being (like a mirage in a plain which the thirsty one thinks is water until he reaches it and finds it to be nothing), does not heal the ailing nor quench the thirst. The opponent can say: "What meaning is there in blaming a servant for something that his power has no entry into, except like the entry of a paralyzed hand into what healthy hands have done?" In that case, what the Sahib ibn 'Abbad said on this subject applies: "How does Allah—the Almighty—order the servant to believe while He has prevented him from it, and forbid him from disbelief while He has burdened him with it? How does He divert them from faith then say: (How are they diverted?) and create in them lying then say: (How are you lied to?) and establish disbelief in them then say: (Why do you disbelieve?) and create in them the dressing of truth with falsehood then say: (Why do you dress truth with falsehood?)..."

If they answer that Allah does what He wills and no one who objects should object to Him—(He is not asked about what He does, but they will be asked)—we say to them: "This is a word of truth by which falsehood is intended; a garden of truth, but you have no harvest from it." Because His—the Almighty—not being asked about what He does is only because He is Wise and does not do that for which He would be questioned. If you say that the temporal power has no effect on its object of power, just as knowledge has no effect on the "known," then the face of calling the servant to account for his actions is like the face of calling him to account for establishing colors and perceptions within himself. This is an exit from the boundary of moderation into committing to falsehood and the impossible, and in it is the invalidation of the great Sharia and the rejection of what was reported from the Prophets—peace and blessings be upon them.

If they mean by "earning" the act of the servant independently, what he wants even if Allah—the Almighty—does not want it, then this is the school of the Mu'tazilah, and in it is an exit from what the predecessors of the nation followed, an encroachment into the quagmires of misguidance, and a journey into the deserts of ruin. If they mean by it the servant's attainment—by his temporal power according to his eternal capacity—not independently, but with the permission of Allah—the Almighty—of those voluntary actions to which His Will relates (which follows the Will of Allah—the Almighty, as we have indicated), then what a wonderful Will, and how blessed is the journey on this path! I will, if Allah—the Almighty—wills, expand upon this, establish evidence for its correctness, and remove the annoyance from its path. However, our Ash'arites today do not perceive, and they think they are doing a good deed, but how evil is what they were doing...

As for what the Mu'tazilah mentioned, especially their leading scholar Al-Zamakhshari, it is not the first blind path they have stumbled upon, nor the first abyss of desires into which they have plunged. How often have they descended from the pulpit of faith in the text to the lowland of its interpretation, seeking discord and wanting to recover from the trial written upon them! Long have they found the sweet waters of the Sunnah to be unwholesome, and have descended into the wells of torment from the hot spring of heresy. The doubt that "buzzes" here around the sanctuary is that if the actions of the servants were created by Allah—the Almighty—He would not have reproached His servants for them, nor would He have punished them for them, nor would the proof of Allah have been established against them. This is weaker than spiderwebs—and it is the weakest of houses! You have already known the answer to it from what we have presented to you; let it be remembered from you.

We return to say: If they attribute the necessity—and they do so—to the rule of "beautification and ugliness" (al-tahsin wa al-taqbih) and say, "Punishing a human for the act of another is ugly in common observation, especially when it is from the actor, so it must be rejected in the Unseen," it is said: It is also ugly in common observation to enable one's servant to perform atrocities and indecencies in view and hearing, then punish him for it while having the power to deter him and prevent him from it from the beginning. You say that the power by which the servant creates indecencies for himself is created by Allah—the Almighty—with knowledge from Him—the Almighty—that the servant will create that for himself with it. So, he is like one giving a sharp sword to a lecher, knowing that he will cut the road and kidnap the chaste women with it. This is definitely ugly in common observation.

If they say: "There is Wisdom that Allah—the Almighty—has kept to Himself, which distinguishes between the Unseen and the observed, so that the enablement is good from the Unseen and not good in common observation," we say—by way of concession and agreement with some people—what prevents those actions from being created by Allah—the Almighty—and Him punishing the servant for them for an interest and wisdom He kept to Himself, as you have just finished doing, matching the feather to the feather? Furthermore, that the sealer in reality is Satan is something that even Satan would not venture to say! Do you not hear how he said: (By Your Might, I will surely mislead them all)? There is no power or strength except with Allah. Let this amount be sufficient in this place.

Qulub (hearts) is the plural of qalb (heart). It is originally a verbal noun, used as a name for the pine-shaped body deposited in the left cavity of the chest. It is the sunrise of the human subtlety (latifah), and it is also applied to the very same luminous, divine, knowing, subtle reality, which is the landing place of the Samadani lights. By it, a human is a human, and by it, he is prepared to acquire commands and avoid prohibitions. It is an essence generated from the spiritual soul, and the philosopher expresses it as the "speaking soul." Because it is the target for the arrows of compulsion and grace, the manifestation of beauty and majesty, the origin of expansion and contraction, the source of effacement and sobriety, and the source of praiseworthy morals and blameworthy states—and it rarely rests in one state or continues on one pattern—it was called qalb (heart), as it is fluctuating in His command and turning according to the decree and destiny of Allah. In the Hadith: "The heart is like a feather in a vast land, turned by the winds." The poet said: "The heart was named qalb because of its turning (taqallub); so beware for the heart from turning (qalb) and transformation."

Naming the known body a heart, if you examine it deeply, is only because of the turning of that subtlety shining upon it, for it is the master organ that is the source of the innate heat that extends to the entire body. Its health and corruption are metaphors for the health and corruption of that subtlety because of the connection between them, the reality of which only Allah—the Almighty—knows. It is as if this is why the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said: "Beware, there is in the body a morsel; if it is sound, the whole body is sound, and if it is corrupted, the whole body is corrupted. Beware, it is the heart." Many people went to the view that this morsel is the location of knowledge, while it was said it is in the brain, and it was said it is shared between them, and this was built on proving the internal senses. The discussion about this is famous. Whoever researches will find that he realized there is an intangible link and a secret referral between the brain and the heart, which is not denied by anyone who has a heart or listens while he is a witness. However, knowing the reality of that is as difficult as it is impossible, and pointing to the essence of what is there is difficult for the masters of realities and those of subtleties. "Whoever knows his self knows his Lord," and the inability to grasp the grasping is itself a grasp.

Sam' (hearing) is a verbal noun from sami'a... and is applied to a power deposited in the nerves spread or the center in the ear, by which sounds are perceived. It is sometimes used for the ear itself, and other times for the action, as in: (They are excluded from hearing).

Absar (vision) is the plural of basar (vision), which is originally the meaning of the eye's perception and sensation. Then it was used metaphorically for the power deposited in the meeting point of the two hollow nerves reaching from the brain to the pupils, whose nature is to perceive colors and shapes in a detail known in its place, and for the eye which is its location. This became common until it became a reality in usage because it is the first to come to mind, and this is what is appropriate for the "veil," because it relates to the objects. "Sealing" is appropriate for what is appropriate for the "veil."

He—the Almighty—placed "sealing" before "hearts" here because the verse is a confirmation of the lack of belief, so it was appropriate to place hearts first because they are the location of belief, while hearing and vision are ways and tools for it. This is contrary to His, the Almighty’s, saying: (And He sealed on his hearing and his heart), for that is driven by the lack of concern for admonitions, and that is why the ending was: (Will you not then remember?) So the appropriate thing there was to place hearing first. He—the Almighty—repeated the preposition so it would be more indicative of the intensity of the sealing in both places, for that which is placed in a chest, if the chest is sealed and the house is sealed, is stronger in preventing it and more apparent in its independence. The repetition of the preposition entails the observation of the meaning of the transitive verb as if it were mentioned twice.

• This is a strict translation of the provided Alusi text, maintaining the theological density of his commentary on the nature of Divine Will, human capacity, and the eternal knowledge of Allah.