Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:17

Having established the reality of their attributes, He follows it with a parable to further clarify and complete the explanation. The Arabs’ use of parables and the scholars’ employment of analogies and parallels is a well-known method for revealing hidden meanings and lifting the veils from truths. It presents the imagined in the form of the realized, the conjectured in the guise of the certain, and the absent as if it were witnessed.

It serves to rebuke the stubborn adversary and suppress the arrogance of the defiant. For this reason, God has filled His clear Book—as have the prophets and sages in their own writings—with such parables. God says: "And these parables We present to the people, but none will understand them except the knowledgeable" (Al-Ankabut: 43).

A mathal (parable/likeness) in their language means a mithl (equal/counterpart). It is said: mathal, mithl, and mathil, just as one says shabah, shibh, and shabih. It then came to refer to a common saying whose application is likened to its origin. They would not strike a parable unless it possessed a certain strangeness, which is why it was preserved and protected from alteration.

If you ask: What is the meaning of "Their likeness is as the likeness of him who kindled a fire"? Why is the likeness of the hypocrites compared to the likeness of one who kindled a fire, equating one to the other? I say: The mathal (likeness) has been used as a metaphor—like the metaphor of a "lion" for a "courageous man"—to describe a state, an attribute, or a story that is significant and strange. It is as if it were said: "Their strange state is like the state of him who kindled a fire." Similarly, His saying: "The likeness of the Paradise which the righteous have been promised" (Ar-Ra'd: 35) means: "Among the wonders We have narrated to you is the story of this wondrous Paradise."

If you ask: How is the group (the hypocrites) likened to a single person? I say: The singular alladhi (he who) is used in place of the plural alladhina (those who), as in His saying: "And you engaged in discourse like that in which they engaged" (At-Tawbah: 69). The reason for this substitution—which is not permitted for other attributes—is twofold: First, alladhi is a connector used to describe any definite noun with a clause; it is frequent in their speech and, being extended by its clause, is worthy of abbreviation. Thus, they lightened it by dropping the ya, then the kasra, and finally restricted it to the lam alone in active and passive participles. Second, its plural is not like other plurals formed with waw and nun; the latter is a marker for added emphasis. Furthermore, the hypocrites themselves are not being compared to the person of the kindler; rather, their story is being compared to the story of the kindler.

Regarding the vocabulary:

• "Kindled a fire" (istawqada): The waqud (fuel) of fire is its brightness and the rising of its flames.
• "Light" (nur): It is the brightness of the fire and of every luminous thing; it is the opposite of darkness.
• "Illuminated" (ada'at): This is an intensive form of inara (lighting).
• "Around him" (hawlahu): This is in the accusative as an adverb of place.

If you ask: Where is the answer to the "when" (lamma)? I say: There are two views. First, the answer is: "God took away their light." Second, it is omitted, as it is in the verse: "So when they took him..." (Yusuf: 15). Omission is preferred here for conciseness and to imply a state more eloquent than words—as if to say: "When it illuminated what was around him, it died out, and they remained stumbling in darkness, bewildered, grieving over the loss of the light, and disappointed after their toil in kindling the fire."

If you ask: If the answer is omitted, what does "God took away their light" relate to? I say: It is a new, independent statement. It is as if, when their state was likened to the kindler whose fire was extinguished, a questioner asked: "What is the matter with them that their state is likened to this?" The reply was: "God took away their light."

If you ask: What is the meaning of attributing the action to God? I say: When a fire is extinguished by a heavenly cause—wind or rain—God has extinguished it. Alternatively, the fire may be metaphorical, such as the fire of sedition or enmity toward Islam, which is short-lived. Or it may be a real fire kindled by the misguided to reach some sin, which God then extinguishes, disappointing their hopes.

If you ask: Why was "light" (nur) mentioned instead of "brightness" (daw'), given the earlier mention of "illuminated" (ada'at)? I say: Mentioning nur is more eloquent because daw' implies an increase, whereas the goal here is the total removal and erasure of the light. This is confirmed by what follows: "And left them in darkness, [so] they do not see." Darkness is the absence of light.

If you ask: How is their state likened to the kindler? I say: In that, after the illumination, they stumbled in darkness and fell into confusion. The "illumination" refers to the brief benefit they derived from the word of faith they uttered with their tongues, behind which lay the darkness of hypocrisy, leading them to the darkness of God's wrath and eternal punishment.

If you ask: How is this classified by the scholars of rhetoric? I say: It is a "perfected simile" (tashbih baligh), not a metaphor (isti'ara), because the subject being compared (the hypocrites) is explicitly mentioned. A metaphor is only used when the subject is omitted, leaving the speech to refer to the source of the metaphor alone.