Muhammad (47): (24) Do they not then reflect upon the Qur'an...

We will mention its exegesis in several issues:

Issue 1: The Meaning of "Do they not then reflect?"

When Allah Almighty said, {So He deafened them and blinded their sight} (Muhammad: 23), how can they reflect upon the Qur'an? Allah then said, {Do they not then reflect?} This is like someone saying to a blind person, "See!" or to a deaf person, "Listen!"

The answer to this can be given in three successive ways, each better than the last:

1. Imposing the Impossible is Permissible: Allah commanded someone whom He knew would not believe to believe. Similarly, it is permissible for Him to blind them and then blame them for abandoning reflection.
2. The Addressees are the General Populace: The statement {Do they not then reflect?} refers to all people (in general).
3. The Verse Confirms the Preceding One: This verse confirms the meaning of the preceding verse. Allah said, {Those are the ones whom Allah has cursed} (Muhammad: 23), meaning He has distanced them from goodness, truth, or other praiseworthy matters. {So He deafened them}—they do not truly hear the speech—and {blinded their sight}—they do not follow the path of Islam.

Therefore, they are in one of two states:

• Either they do not reflect upon the Qur'an, thus being distanced from it because Allah has cursed them and distanced them from goodness and truth, of which the Qur'an is the highest form.
• Or they do reflect, but its meanings do not enter their hearts because their hearts are sealed.

The meaning is: Do they not reflect upon the Qur'an because they are cursed and distanced, or are there locks upon their hearts, so they reflect but do not understand?

Under this interpretation, we do not need to treat 'or' (أم) as meaning 'rather' (بل). Instead, it remains in its true sense as an interrogative particle placed in the middle of the statement. The Hamza (for the initial question) takes the position of the beginning, and 'or' (أم) introduces the clause about the hearts being in the middle of the statement.

Issue 2: The Indefiniteness of "upon hearts" (على قلوب)

What is the benefit of using the indefinite form for "hearts" (قلوب)?

Al-Zamakhshari suggests two possibilities:

1. It serves to emphasize that the hearts are characterized (by something negative), as an indefinite noun followed by a description is stronger than a definite noun. It is as if He said, "Or upon hearts that are hard or dark."
2. It implies partiality (للتبعيض), as if He meant, "Or upon some hearts," because the indefinite does not encompass the whole. You say, "Men came to me" (implying some), but "The men came to me" (implying all).

We argue that the indefiniteness of "hearts" is to draw attention to the denial inherent in those hearts. This is because when a heart is knowledgeable, it is recognized as such, as the heart was created for knowledge. If knowledge is absent from it, it is as if it is not a knowing heart. This is like saying of a harmful person, "This is not a human; this is a beast," or saying, "This is not a heart; this is a stone."

Given this, definiteness is achieved either by the definite article (ال) or by possession (Idafa). The definite article (ال) signifies either the genus or prior acquaintance. The genus cannot be intended here because there is not a lock on every heart. Prior acquaintance is also not intended because such a heart should not even be called a heart.

As for possession, if we said, "upon hearts whose locks are upon them" (على قلوب أقفالها), this would be to indicate that the locks are so inherent that they are not considered theirs (i.e., they yield no benefit to them).

If one asks: Hasn't Allah said, {Allah has set a seal upon their hearts} (Al-Baqarah: 7) and {So woe to those whose hearts are hardened} (Az-Zumar: 22)?

We reply: The term "locks" (أقفال) is more emphatic than "seal" (ختم). The omission of possession (الإضافة) is due to their complete lack of benefit.

Issue 3: The Possession of "their locks" (أقفالها)

Why is "their locks" (أقفالها) in the possessive form (Idafa), while "hearts" (قلوب) was indefinite?

This is because the locks are intrinsically related to the hearts, as if they belong exclusively to them. In summary, the hearts are not attributed to them (the disbelievers) because they yield no benefit to them, whereas the locks are attributed to the hearts because they are appropriate for them.

We also suggest that it refers to specific locks: the locks of disbelief and obstinacy.

< {Indeed, those who turned back on their heels after the guidance had become clear to them, Satan made it appealing to them and prolonged their hope.} >