Tafsir of Ghafir 40:58

(And not equal are the blind and the seeing, nor the darkness and the light, nor the shade and the heat). It is also permitted to delay the opposing terms, such as [mentioning] the blind and the deaf, and the hearing and the seeing; all of this belongs to the category of stylistic variation in eloquence and modes of speech. The purpose of negating the equality of those mentioned is to demonstrate that this disparity is among those things that point toward the Resurrection, as if it were said: The heedless and the discerning, the doer of good and the doer of evil are not equal, therefore there must be another state for them in which the disparity between the two groups becomes apparent, and that is after the Resurrection.

The [negation particle] "la" (nor) is repeated in [the phrase describing] the doer of evil to reiterate the previous negation due to the separation between them by the length of the connection, and because the intent of the negation is that the disbeliever who does evil is not equal to the believer who does good. Mentioning the lack of equality between the blind and the seeing serves as a premise for this. If the negation were not repeated therein, one might be heedless of it and think it to be the start of a new statement. If it were said: "Nor those who believe and the doer of evil," it would not have been explicit regarding this either, for it could be taken as an independent sentence, with "few are those who remember" as its predicate, and pluralized according to the meaning; this was stated by al-Khafaji. This is if it is read with the ya of the third person. It is said: It was not said "nor those who believe and the doer of evil" because the intent is to negate the equality of the evil-doer to the doer of good, not the equality of the doer of good to him, as the intent is to show his [the evil-doer's] loss. There is no purity without dross, so reflect upon this.

The relative pronoun with what is conjoined to it is conjoined to "the blind" and what is conjoined to it, a conjunction of a totality to a totality, as in His saying, the Exalted: (He is the First and the Last, the Manifest and the Hidden). Conjunction was not abandoned between them based on the fact that the first [pair] is the thing likened and the second [pair] is that which is likened to it, and they are identical in outcome, for each of the two former descriptions is distinct from each of the two latter descriptions; and the distinctness of attributes is like the distinctness of essences in validating conjunction. The aspect of distinctness is that the heedless, the discerning, the doer of good, and the doer of evil are attributes with distinct concepts, setting aside the identity of their referents or lack thereof. It is said: The distinctness between the first two attributes and the last two is from the perspective that the intent in the first two is towards knowledge, and in the last two towards action, and this is an acceptable perspective. It is also said: Even if they are identical in essence, they are distinct in consideration, in that the second is explicit and the first is mentioned by way of example; this was scrutinized by the objection that if one were to suffice with mere distinctness of this kind, it would necessitate the permissibility of conjoining the thing likened to the thing it is likened to, and vice-versa.

(Few are those who remember) meaning: you remember with little remembrance. The majority, al-A'raj, al-Hasan, Abu Ja'far, and Shaybah read it with the ya of the third person, the pronoun referring to people or the disbelievers. Al-Zamakhshari said: The ta [of the second person] is more general. The author of al-Taqrib explained it by saying that it involves the dominance of address over third-person reference. Al-Qadi said: The ta is for dominance, or for iltifat (shifting from one mode of address to another), or it is an order to the Messenger, peace be upon him, to address them—that is, with the implied command "Say" before it. The scholar al-Tibi preferred the iltifat, because the shift from the third person to the second person in a context of rebuke indicates severe harshness and eloquent denial. Thus, this verse is connected to the creation of the heavens, and it is a discourse with the disputants. The author of al-Kashf critiqued this by saying that it is permissible to make what was mentioned a nuance of the [rule of] dominance, so it would be more appropriate for the benefit of generalization as well, so understand this. The apparent meaning is that the dominance [rule] applies to the possibility of the pronoun referring to people and the possibility of its referring to the disbelievers, because some people or some disbelievers are being addressed here. The "littleness" can also be applied in its literal sense, because among them are those who remember and are guided. Al-Jalabi said: If the pronoun is for people, the "littleness" is in its true sense, and those excluded are the believers; if it is for the disbelievers, it is in the sense of total negation. Furthermore, the apparent meaning is that the one addressed is whom the Prophet, peace be upon him, addressed among the Quraysh. As for him who said: The one addressed is the Prophet, peace be upon him, due to His saying, the Exalted: (So be patient), it does not suit to include him among those who did not remember; for he is sacred, and he indeed remembered.