Yā Sīn: (66) And if We willed, We could have obliterated...

We have repeatedly mentioned that the Straight Path (al-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm) lies between compulsion (Jabr) and free will (Qadar); it is the middle way. In every instance where God Almighty mentions what the Compulsionists (Mujbirah) rely upon, He immediately follows it with what the Free Will proponents (Qadariyyah) rely upon, and vice versa.

It is similar here. When God Almighty said: {And their feet will testify against them concerning what they used to earn} (Yā Sīn: 65), and {Enter it today for what you used to disbelieve} (Yā Sīn: 64), this served as a basis for the Qadariyyah, as God attributed disbelief and earning to them, referring good and evil back to them. Therefore, He immediately followed this with what indicates that their disbelief and earning are by God's Will.

This is because disbelief blinds insight and weakens intellectual faculty. The blinding of insight is by God's Will and decree. If He wills, He blinds insights, just as if He willed, He could have obliterated their seeing eyes. He can also withdraw intellectual faculty by His choice and Will, just as withdrawing physical power is by His Will. If He willed, He could have deformed the accountable person in his place, fixing him so he could neither move right nor left, nor be capable of proceeding or returning.

Thus, blinding insights is like blinding sight, and withdrawing intellectual faculty is like withdrawing physical power. He said: {And if We willed, We could have obliterated their eyes} (Yā Sīn: 66). This indicates that if He had willed and intended to blind their insights, they would have gone astray. And if He willed to obliterate their eyes, they would not have been guided to their apparent path. He willed and chose to withdraw the power of their intellects, so they erred. And if He willed to withdraw the power of their bodies and deform them, they would not have been able to advance or retreat.

In these two verses, there are linguistic discussions:

Al-Zamakhsharī mentioned several interpretations for this:

1. It involves the omission of the preposition ilā (to), and the verb is connected directly without a preposition. The original form would be Fastabiqū ilā al-Ṣirāṭ (So race toward the Path).
2. The meaning of Istibāq (racing/hastening) here is to initiate action, as an exaggeration in seeking guidance to the Path. It is as if He is saying: The Path that is with them, they are not seeking or intending it. Rather, they are upon it only when God has blinded their eyes and they cannot see it. So how could it be if they were not even on the Path?

The obliteration (Ṭams) and blinding (I‘mā’) were mentioned before deformation (Maskh) and incapacitation (I‘jāz) so that the discourse flows logically. It is as if He said: If We blinded them, they would not see the path they are on, and consequently, they would not be guided to it. If someone asks: A blind person might still be guided to the path by intellectual signs or sensory cues other than sight, such as sounds or walking by the sense of touch.

So, the discourse ascends and says: If We deformed them and withdrew their power entirely, they would not be guided to the Path by any means whatsoever.

Proceeding (Muḍī) was mentioned before returning (Rujū‘) because returning is easier than proceeding. Proceeding does not imply having traversed the path before, whereas returning does imply prior traversal. There is no doubt that traversing a path once seen is easier than traversing a path never seen. Therefore, He said: {They could not see forward nor backward} (lā yastatī‘ūna muḍiyan wa lā aqall min dhālik), meaning even returning, which is easier than proceeding.