Al-Baqarah: (17) Their likeness is as the likeness of one who kindled a fire...

Know that before delving into the interpretation of the words of this verse, we will discuss two matters.

The first is that the purpose of striking parables is to affect the hearts in a way that the mere description of a thing does not. This is because the goal of a parable is to liken the hidden to the apparent, and the absent to the present, so that grasping its essence becomes confirmed, and sensory perception aligns with intellect, resulting in the utmost clarity. Do you not see that encouragement towards faith, when presented without a parable, does not settle in the heart as firmly as when it is likened to light? Similarly, dissuasion from disbelief, when merely mentioned, does not establish its ugliness in the intellect as firmly as when it is likened to darkness. If one is informed of the weakness of a matter and a parable is struck for it, such as the web of a spider, this is more effective in establishing its image than merely stating its weakness. This is why Allah the Exalted has multiplied His parables in His Clear Book and in all His other books, saying: {And these parables We strike for the people} (Al-Ankabut: 43, Al-Hashr: 21). And among the Surahs of the Injil is the Surah of Proverbs (Mithal).

In this verse, there are several issues:

Issue 1: The Meaning of Mathal (Parable)

In their original language, mathal means likeness or equivalent. It is said: mathal, mithal, and mathīl, just as shabah, shabah, and shabīh (likeness/resemblance). Then, the widely circulated saying that is used as an example in its context is called a mathal, provided that the saying possesses some element of strangeness in some aspect.

Issue 2: The Two Parables Following the Description of the Hypocrites

When Allah the Exalted clarified the reality of the hypocrites' characteristics, He followed it with two parables for increased revelation and explanation. One is this parable, which presents several difficulties:

1. Objection 1: What is the rationale for the similitude of one who was given light and then that light was taken away, when the hypocrite possesses no light to begin with?
2. Objection 2: If one kindles a fire, and it illuminates for a while, he benefits from it and its light before being deprived, but the hypocrites gain absolutely no benefit from faith. So, what is the rationale for the parable?
3. Objection 3: The one who kindled the fire acquired the light for himself, and Allah the Exalted took away his light and left him in darkness. However, the hypocrite acquired no good; the disappointment and confusion that befall him are due to his own actions. So, what is the basis for the comparison?

The Answer: Scholars have mentioned several ways to explain the similitude:

1. The view of Al-Saddi: He said that some people entered Islam when the Prophet (peace be upon him) arrived in Medina, and then they became hypocrites. The similitude here is perfectly sound because they first acquired light through their initial faith, and then through their subsequent hypocrisy, they nullified that light and fell into great confusion. Indeed, there is no confusion greater than the confusion of religion, for one lost due to darkness on a path loses only a little of this world, whereas one lost in religion loses his soul for eternity in the Hereafter.
2. If Al-Saddi's view is not sound, and they were hypocrites from the beginning: Then there is another interpretation mentioned by Al-Hasan (may Allah have mercy on him). He said that by outwardly professing Islam, they secured the safety of their blood, the protection of their wealth from plunder, and the safety of their offspring from captivity, and they gained spoils of war and all the rulings applicable to Muslims. They considered this a light from the lights of faith. Since this benefit was small compared to eternal punishment, their situation was likened to one who kindles a fire, benefits from its light briefly, and is then deprived, leading to lasting confusion and regret due to the darkness that followed the light. Thus, their slight benefit in this world resembled light, and the great harm in the Hereafter resembled darkness.
3. We say: The basis of the similitude is not that the hypocrite possesses light, but rather that the kindler of the fire became confused when the light departed from him. The confusion of one who was in light and then lost it is more severe than the confusion of a traveler in perpetual darkness. However, Allah the Exalted mentioned the light in the context of the fire-kindler so that it becomes sound to describe him with this intense darkness, not that the light and darkness are the basis of the comparison itself.
4. Another view: What the hypocrite manifests gives the impression of being a light from which benefit is derived. The departure of the light is what he reveals of disbelief and hypocrisy to his associates. Those who hold this view say the parable relates to His saying: {And when they meet those who believe, they say, "We believe," but when they are alone with their devils, they say, "Indeed, we are with you"} (Al-Baqarah: 14). Thus, the fire is a parable for their saying, "We believe," and its departure is a parable for their saying to the disbelievers, "Indeed, we are with you." If it is asked: How can what the hypocrite manifests of the word of faith be likened to light when he conceals the opposite when uttering it? We reply: If he had coupled the utterance with belief and action, he would have completed the light for himself, but since he did not, his light was not completed. The mere utterance was called light because it is a true statement in itself.
5. Another possibility: Kindling the fire may be an expression for the hypocrite's outward declaration of the word of faith. It is called light because it adorns his outward appearance among the people, and he becomes praised because of it among them. Then, Allah the Exalted takes away that light by uncovering the hypocrite's secret, making his true state known to the Prophet and the believers. Thus, the name of hypocrisy appears instead of the name of faith that was manifested from him, leaving him in darkness where he cannot see, because the light he previously had has been exposed and removed by Allah.
6. Another view: Since they were described as having "purchased error for guidance," this parable follows to liken their guidance, which they sold, to the illuminating fire surrounding the fire-kindler, and the error they purchased and which was sealed upon their hearts is likened to Allah taking away their light and leaving them in darkness.
7. Another possibility: The fire-kindler here might be one who kindles a fire that Allah is not pleased with. The purpose is to liken the sedition (fitnah) the hypocrites tried to stir up to this fire. The sedition they stirred up was short-lived, as seen in His saying: {Whenever they kindle a fire for war, Allah extinguishes it} (Al-Ma'idah: 64).
8. The view of Sa'id ibn Jubayr: It was revealed concerning the Jews and their expectation of the emergence of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and their seeking alliance with the polytheists of Arabia through him. When he emerged, they disbelieved in him. Their expectation of Muhammad (PBUH) was like kindling the fire, and their disbelief in him after his appearance was like the vanishing of that light.

Issue 3: The Similitude of Faith to Light and Disbelief to Darkness

The similitude of faith to light and disbelief to darkness is abundant in the Book of Allah. The rationale is that light reaches the ultimate degree in guiding one to the right path, to the path of benefit, and in removing confusion—and this is the state of faith regarding religion. Thus, what is ultimate in removing confusion and attaining benefit in religion is likened to what is ultimate in the worldly realm. The same applies to likening disbelief to darkness, because for one lost on a path who needs to traverse it, no cause of deprivation and confusion is greater than darkness. In the realm of religion, nothing is greater than disbelief. Therefore, Allah the Exalted likened one to the other. This covers the general purpose of this verse.

Now, there remain questions and answers related to the details:

This implies likening their likeness to the likeness of the fire-kindler. What is the mathal (likeness/story) of the hypocrites and the mathal of the fire-kindler such that one is likened to the other?

Answer: The word mathal is metaphorically used for a story or a characteristic that is significant and possesses strangeness. It is as if it means: "Their wondrous story is like the story of the one who kindled a fire." Similarly, {The parable of the Garden promised to the righteous} (Ar-Ra'd: 35) means: Among the wonders we have narrated to you, there is the wondrous story of the Garden. And {And to Allah belongs the highest parable} (An-Nahl: 60) means: The description that possesses grandeur and majesty. And {Their description in the Torah} (Al-Fath: 29) means: Their description and their wondrous state. Because mathal carries the meaning of strangeness, they say, "So-and-so is mithluhu (like him) in good and evil," deriving a characteristic of great significance from it.

Answer: There are several ways:

1. It is permissible in the language to use the singular pronoun (alladhī) in place of the plural (alladhīna), as in {and you plunged as they plunged} (At-Tawbah: 69). This is permissible because alladhī, being a relative pronoun used for any indefinite definite noun and frequently used in their speech, and being lengthened by its relative clause, is deserving of abbreviation. Therefore, they simplified it by dropping its yā’, then its kasrah, and finally restricted it to just the lām in active and passive participles.
2. The meaning intended is the genus of fire-kindlers, or the plural or group that kindled a fire is intended.
3. The strongest view: The hypocrites themselves are not likened to the person of the fire-kindler, so that likening a group to an individual becomes necessary. Rather, their story is likened to the story of the fire-kindler. Examples include His saying: {The parable of those who were entrusted with the Torah, then they did not bear it, is as the likeness of a donkey} (Al-Jumu'ah: 5), and {looking at you as one overwhelmed by death} (Muhammad: 20).
4. The meaning is: "The likeness of each one of them," as in {He brings you out as a child} (Ghafir: 67), meaning He brings out each one of you.

Answer:

• The fuel (waqūd) of the fire is its brilliance and the rising of its flame.
• The fire (nār) is a subtle, luminous, hot, and burning essence. Its derivation is from nāra and nūra when one is startled, because it involves movement and agitation. Light (nūr) is derived from it, being its radiance. Manār (beacon) is a sign, and manārah (minaret) is that upon which the call to prayer is made. It is also used for the object upon which a lamp is placed. From this is nūrah (a depilatory substance) because it purifies the body.
• Illumination (iḍā’ah) is excessive shining. This is confirmed by His saying: {It is He who made the sun a shining light (ḍiyā’) and the moon a light (nūr)} (Yunus: 5). The verb (aḍā’a) is used transitively and intransitively. You say: Aḍā’at an-nār aẓ-ẓulumāt (The fire illuminated the darkness), and aḍā’a al-qamar (The moon shone) meaning istadā’a (it became luminous). A poet said:

  Their lineages and faces illuminated for them The darkness of the night until its piercing jewel was threaded.

• What surrounds (ḥawla) something is what is connected to it. You say dārat ḥawlahu wa ḥawālayhi (it circled around him and its surroundings). Al-ḥawl (the year) is so named because it revolves (taḥūl). Ḥāla ‘an al-‘ahd (he changed from the covenant) means he changed. Ḥāla lawnuhu (his color changed). Al-ḥawālah is the transfer of a right from one person to another. Al-muḥāwalah is seeking an action after not seeking it. Al-ḥawl is the turning of the eye, and al-ḥawl is revolution/change, as Allah says: {They will not desire any change from it} (Al-Kahf: 108).
• Darkness (ẓulumāt) is the absence of light from that which is capable of being illuminated. In its linguistic origin, darkness refers to deficiency. Allah says: {It yielded its fruit and did not fall short of it in anything} (Al-Kahf: 33), meaning it did not decrease. In a proverb: "Whoever resembles his father has not wronged (ẓalama)," meaning he has not diminished the right of resemblance. Aẓ-ẓulm is snow, because it diminishes quickly. Aẓ-ẓulm is also the water of the year and its softness and whiteness, likened to snow.

Answer: Both are permissible. It is said: Aḍā’at an-nār bi-nafsihā (The fire illuminated by itself), and aḍā’at ghayrahā (It illuminated something else). Similarly, aẓlama ash-shay’u bi-nafsih (The thing became dark by itself), and aẓlama ghayrahu (It made something else dark). Here, the transitive meaning is closer, although it could be intransitive, referring to what was around it, and the feminine form is used by carrying over the meaning, as what was around the fire-kindler were places and things. This is supported by the recitation of Ibn Abi ‘Abla: (ḍā’a - without the alif).

Answer: Mentioning light (nūr) is more eloquent because ḍaw’ (brightness/radiance) implies increase. If it were said, "Allah took away their ḍaw’," it might imply the removal of perfection while something still called light remained. The goal is the complete removal of light from them. Do you not see how He immediately followed it with: {and left them in darkness, unable to see}? Darkness is the absence of light, and He pluralized it (ẓulumāt), made it indefinite (ẓulumāt), and followed it with what indicates pure darkness: {unable to see} (lā yubṣirūn).

Answer: The difference between adhbaba and dhahaba bi- is that adhbaba means to remove and make something go away. Dhahaba bi- means to take something along with oneself, meaning "with it." Dhāba as-sulṭān bi-mālihi means he took his wealth. Allah says: {When they went away with him} (Yusuf: 15), and {If there were in the heavens and the earth any deities other than Allah, there would have been ruin in both} (Al-Mu'minun: 91). The meaning is that Allah took their light and retained it, and {Whatever He withholds, none can release it} (Fatir: 2). Thus, it is more emphatic than mere removal (idhāb). The Yemenite recitation used (adhbaba Allāhu nūrahum).

Answer: When the verb taraka (to leave) is connected to one object, it means to cast aside. When connected to two objects, it means to render/make, functioning like verbs of the heart. Hence, {and left them in darkness} (wa tarakahum fī ẓulumātin). The original structure was "they were in darkness," then taraka entered, making both objects accusative.

Answer: This is of the type where the abandoned object is not intended to be brought to mind, not of the type where a hidden object is intended. It is as if the verb is not transitive at all in this context.

7 < { Deaf, dumb, blind, so they will not return } . > 7

<