Tafsir of Ya seen 36:66

(And if We willed, We could have obliterated their eyes) This is an explanation that they are, this day, within the grasp of [Divine] Power and deserving of punishment, were it not that He, may He be glorified and exalted, did not will that due to His dazzling wisdom. Al-Tams (obliteration) is the removal of a trace by erasing it. The meaning is: If We willed to obliterate their eyes and remove their light and form entirely, such that they would become wiped away, We would have obliterated them and removed their traces. It is also permissible that al-tams be meant as the removal of sight without the removal of the organ and its trace; that is, if We willed, We would have blinded them. The preference for the future tense—even though the meaning is in the past—is to convey that the non-obliteration of their eyes is due to the continued absence of [Divine] Will. For the negative imperfect verb, when used in place of the past tense, is precise in conveying the negation of the continuation of the act, or rather, it may convey the continuity of its negation.

And His saying, exalted be He: (Then they would have raced to the path) This is conjoined to (We would have obliterated), upon the intended condition. Al-sirāt (the path) is in the accusative case by the removal of the preposition; that is, "they would have desired to race to the clear path familiar to them." (So how could they see?) That is, how could they see that path and the direction of travel? The objective is to deny their ability to see. The summary is: If We willed, We would have removed their pupils and their sight; so if they desired to race and follow the path they were accustomed to traveling, they would be unable to do so and would not see it. Interpreting "raced" as "desired to race" is the position of some; it is said this is necessary for the interpretation, for it is permissible for a blind person to begin a race. The accusative of al-sirāt is by removal of the preposition; it is not in the accusative as an adverb of place because it is like a path—a specific location—and something like that cannot be in the accusative as an adverb. It is also permissible for it to be a direct object, by incorporating into istabaqū (raced) the meaning of ibtadarū (rushed toward). It is reported in al-Asās, in the section on literal meaning: "raced to the path" means they rushed to it. Al-Kashf states: "There is no incorporation [of meaning] to it," and some claimed that this is a claim that it is a literal meaning, while the author of al-Asās mentioned it at the end of the section on metaphor. The meaning is: If We willed, We would have done what We did to their eyes, so if they desired to race, rushing toward the path, they would not see. It is also said that it is permissible for it to be a direct object on the basis that istabaqū means sabaqū (outstripped). It is also possible that "the path" is [the object] being outstripped, based on metaphor in attribution, or a conceptual metaphor, or that it means jāwazū (they passed by). The Qāmūs says: "He outstripped the path" means he passed it; the outward sense is that this is literal. Many others said: It is a metaphor, the sign of which is necessity. The meaning is: If We willed, We would have done what We did to their eyes, so if they sought to cross the path they were accustomed to walking upon, they would be unable to do so and would know no way. This means they are only capable of walking the path they are accustomed to, not what lies beyond it of other roads and paths, just as you see that the blind are guided in what they have become familiar with and have traveled of destinations, but not others.

Ibn al-Tarāwah went to the opinion that "the path" and similar locative nouns are not specific, so it is permissible for them to be in the accusative as an adverb of place. This contradicts what Sībawayh explicitly stated, who considered their accusative as an adverb of place to be irregular (shudhūdh), and cited the verse: With the shaking of the palm, its back quivers in it, as the fox quivers on the path. The meaning in the verse, if it were in the accusative as an adverb of place, would be: If We willed, We would have done what We did to their eyes, so if they desired to walk, racing along the familiar path as was their habit, they would not be able to.

Treating "the eyes" as the apparent meaning—the known organs—and "the path" as the sensory road is what is narrated from al-Hasan and Qatādah. From Ibn 'Abbās, it is interpreted as "eyes" meaning insights and "the path" as the intellectual way. Ibn Jarīr and a group narrated from him that he said: "If We willed, We would have obliterated their eyes," meaning We blinded them and led them astray from guidance, "so how could they see?" meaning how could they be guided? This is contrary to the apparent meaning. 'Īsā read fāstabiqū as an imperative. This is based on an implied verb of speech; that is, it is said to them: "Race!" It is a command of incapacitation, for it is impossible for them to race while their eyes are obliterated.