The sealing and the covering are brothers. For in ensuring something by striking a seal upon it, it is a concealment for it and a covering so that it cannot be reached or seen.

And the veil is the covering, being an active form from 'ghasha' if it covers. This construction encompasses something like a bandage and a turban.

If you say: What is the meaning of sealing upon the hearts and the ears and covering the eyes? I say: There is no sealing nor covering. Then, in truth, it is not literal, but rather it is from the realm of metaphor. It is possible that it is from both types, which are metaphor and representation. As for the metaphor, it is to make their hearts such that the truth does not penetrate them nor reach their innermost thoughts due to their turning away from it and their arrogance in accepting and believing it. And their ears, because they reject it and turn away from listening to it, as if they are secured from it by sealing. And their eyes, because they do not perceive the signs of Allah presented and His clear proofs as the eyes of the reflective and insightful do, as if they have been covered and veiled, and a barrier has been placed between them and understanding.

As for the representation, it is to represent that they did not benefit from it in the religious purposes for which they were created, by things that act as a veil between them and benefiting from it through sealing and covering. Some of the grammarians have likened the stammering of the tongue and the inability to speak to sealing upon it, saying:

"Allah has sealed upon the tongue of 'Udhafir'... a seal, so he is not able to speak."

And if he wanted to speak, you would think his tongue was flesh that a hawk is pecking at.

If you say: Why is sealing attributed to Allah, the Exalted?

Mawardi said: If you say, why is sealing attributed to Allah, the Exalted... etc.? Ahmad said: This is the first blind alley he has stumbled into in a pit of desires, where he descended from the platform of the text to the depths of its interpretation, seeking fitna to preserve what has been written upon him of trial. His words contain misguidances that he has prepared and intended:

First: The contradiction of the rational evidence for the oneness of Allah, the Exalted. Its implication is that nothing occurs except by the power of Allah, the Exalted, who has no partner. The refusal to accept the truth is among the occurrences, so it must be included in the realm of general power related to beings and possibilities.

Second: The contradiction of the transmitted evidence that parallels the rational evidence, such as His saying, "Allah is the Creator of all things," and "Is there any creator other than Allah?" This verse also has sealing attributed to Allah, the Exalted, explicitly. Al-Zamakhshari does not reject this, but he claims to turn to its interpretation due to evidence he has. If he establishes that the rational evidence aligns with what it indicates, he must keep it in its apparent meaning. Even if it were to appear contrary to that, it must be interpreted by evidence to reconcile between reason and transmission.

Third: The fleeing from attributing what he believes to be ugly to Allah, the Exalted, in his claim that associating partners with Him in the belief that the devil is the one who creates the sealing, and the disbeliever replaces it for himself by his power contrary to the will of his Lord. He has truly distanced himself from the sources of punishment and has approached the sources of punishment of innovation.

Fourth: The error in believing that what is ugly in the present is also ugly in the absent. Since the refusal to accept the truth is ugly in the present, he must believe that it is ugly in the absent. This is a principle that has been proven false in its own field.

The fifth: His belief that if this were to exist by the power of Allah, the Most High, it would be injustice. And Allah, the Most High, is free from injustice by His saying: "And I am not a wrongdoer to the servants." And it is evident injustice to be ignorant of the reality of injustice, for it is acting in the ownership of another without their permission. So how can it be imagined that its reality exists for Allah, the Most High? And every assumption is confined within the wall of His dominion, for sovereignty belongs to Allah, the One, the All-Prevailing.

The sixth: He fled from the belief in attributing injustice to Allah, the Most High, and fell into it up to his neck because he has asserted that the prevention of accepting the truth, if it were from the action of Allah, the Most High, would be injustice. It is said to him: And the evidence has been established that it is from the action of Allah, the Most High, so it must be injustice—glorified and exalted is Allah above what the wrongdoers say. And the notion that these people keep repeating is that if the actions of the servant were created by Allah, He would not blame them nor punish them, nor would the proof of Allah stand against them. And these doubts have been included in the previous part of his speech, so it is said to them: Why do you say that if they were created by Allah, He would not blame them? If they attribute this implication—and they do so—to the principle of good and evil and say: Punishing a person for the action of another is ugly in the observable world, especially if the punishment is from the doer, it must be rejected in absentia. It is said to them: It is also ugly in the observable world to allow a servant to commit sins and immoralities in his sight and hearing, and then punish him for that while having the power to deter him and prevent him from it from the beginning. And you, O people of Qadar, claim that the ability by which the servant creates immoralities for himself is created by Allah, the Most High, with His knowledge that the servant will create such things for himself. This is akin to giving a sharp sword to a wicked person knowing that he will use it to rob and harm others, and this is certainly ugly in the observable world. They will say: Yes, it is ugly in the observable world, but there is a wisdom that Allah, the Most High, has kept to Himself, which distinguishes between the observable and the unseen. Thus, it is good in the unseen to enable His servant to commit immoralities while having the power to prevent him from doing anything, which is not good in the observable world. At this point, their feet tremble, and their banners are turned upside down when the decisive truths and the flashes of evidence become clear to them. It is said to them: What prevents those actions from being created by Allah, the Most High, and for the servant to be punished for them for a benefit and wisdom that Allah has kept to Himself as you have just concluded? So why does none of you take the fairest path and consider the outcome of this matter, becoming the last of the first? And let him entrust from the beginning to his Creator, and accept the proof of Allah, the Most High, with acceptance and submission, and follow the guidance of reason and the evidence of the Shari'ah on the straight path. If his soul disputes with him and his thoughts trouble him, and he desires a reference from his perspective to find comfort in the wilderness of thought, let him remember what is mentioned to every rational person about the distinction between voluntary and coercive movement, and he will find no doubt in this distinction. If he feels that, let him be alert, for he has been gently guided to deviate from the narrow confines of compulsion, fleeing so that the devil of misguidance does not lead him to the depths of isolation. Let him hold himself back from it with the reins of the proof of oneness, that there is no doer or creator except Allah, the Most High. When he stands, he stands only on the straight path and the best way, passing over it faster than the lightning bolt and the raging wind. Let the observer contemplate this section and take it as a burden in the principle of actions, and he will arrive at the truth, if Allah, the Most High, wills. And attributing it to Him indicates the prevention of accepting the truth and reaching it through its paths, which is ugly, and Allah, the Most High, is above doing what is ugly. This saying: "And Allah is exalted above doing what is ugly" is the doctrine of the Mu'tazilah. However, according to the people of the Sunnah, it is permissible for Him, the Most High, to create evil and will it just as He does good, even though He does not command except with good. And sealing the hearts, according to them, is creating misguidance within them, as explained in the science of monotheism. Glorified and exalted is He for His knowledge of its ugliness and His knowledge of His independence from it.

And He has stated the sanctification of His essence by saying: (And I am not unjust to the servants), (And We did not wrong them, but they were the wrongdoers), (Indeed, Allah does not command immorality) and similar verses that have been revealed. I say: The intention is towards the state of hearts, as if they are sealed upon them. As for attributing the sealing to Allah, the Exalted, it is to indicate that this attribute, in its extreme establishment and firmness, is like a created thing, not an incidental one. Do you not see their saying: So-and-so is created with such and such, meaning he is proficient in being steadfast in it? And how can what has been imagined to you be imagined, while the verse has come denouncing the disgraceful attributes of the disbelievers and the ugliness of their condition, and the threat of a great punishment is attached to that?

It is permissible to strike the sentence as it is, and it is the sealing of Allah upon their hearts, for example, like their saying: the valley has overflowed, when it has perished. And the phoenix has flown with him, when he has prolonged his absence. Neither the valley nor the phoenix has any role in his destruction or in the prolongation of his absence; rather, it is a representation that likens his state in destruction to the state of one who has been swept away by the valley, and in the prolongation of his absence to the state of one who has been carried off by the phoenix. Likewise, the state of their hearts, in what they were upon of distancing from the truth, is likened to the hearts that Allah has sealed, similar to the hearts of the mute, which are devoid of understanding like the hearts of animals, or to the hearts of the animals themselves, or to the hearts that Allah has decreed to be sealed upon them so that they do not comprehend anything nor understand, and He, the Exalted, has no action in their distancing from the truth and their turning away from accepting it, and He is exalted above that.

And it is permissible for the attribution of the sealing itself from others to Allah, so that the sealing is attributed to the name of Allah in a metaphorical sense. And it is a reality for others. The interpretation of this is that the action has various circumstances that it is associated with: the doer, the object, the source, the time, the place, and the cause for it. So, attributing it to the doer is a reality, and it may be attributed to these things in a metaphorical manner called metaphor, as it resembles the doer in its association with the action, just as a man resembles a lion in his courage, so his name is borrowed for him. It is said in the object: a pleasing life, and a flowing water. And in the opposite: a flood that is full. And in the source: the poetry of a poet, and a tail that is dragging. And in time: his day is fasting, and his night is standing in prayer. And in place: a path that is traversed, and a river that is flowing. And the people of Mecca say: he prayed at the station. And in the cause: the prince built the city, and a she-camel that is uncertain in its fatness. And he said:

When the one who is generous with the pot is returned, do not ask me, but ask about my nature... When the one who is generous with the pot is returned from borrowing it.

So they were sitting above it, watching it... And a girl from the tribe was among those who borrowed it.

For 'Awf ibn al-Ahwas al-Bahili. And it is said for al-Kumayt. He says: do not ask me about my nature, but ask others about it, at the time when the generous one with the pot - meaning the seeker of sustenance in it - is prevented from borrowing it to cook in it. And attributing the return to the generous one is a mental metaphor because the true preventer is the owner of the pot due to the seeker of sustenance, and he did not attribute it to himself to disassociate from the attribution of the return to it, unless the meaning is the genus of the pot, not just its specific pot, so the meaning is: if the time becomes barren, as will come. And the plural pronoun in his saying 'they were' is because the generous one is multiple in meaning: as if the generous ones were sitting around it waiting for what is in it to be cooked. And the girl of the tribe - meaning his tribe - was among those who borrowed the pot. And it is permissible that the pronoun 'they were' refers to those who borrowed it. And it is possible that 'the generous one with the pot' refers to what was left in it of the broth, and the attribution is also metaphorical in the sense that whoever borrows it finds it occupied, which is evidence of the abundance of his cooking for the guests.

It is permissible that what is meant is that the condition is drought, to the extent that the owner of the pot is reluctant to lend it out, eager for what remains of the broth in it, even if it is little. The pronoun 'they were' refers to those who borrow it. It is also permissible that the pot was spared: a direct object whose case is not apparent due to the weight, and 'those who borrow it' is the subject. It was customary among the Arabs in times of drought for the borrower to keep the remaining broth in the pot for the lender. Thus, it is a metaphor for drought, but it does not suit what follows. It is also permissible that the meaning is that if the borrower of the pot is reluctant to lend it, meaning the seeker of sustenance from it, due to his stinginess and the absence of guests at his place, he does not possess a pot for himself. If he borrows a pot to cook in it once, he prevents the seeker of sustenance from it. Based on this, it is possible that it is a plural form from which the nun was omitted due to the addition, and it is in the accusative case with the ya. These are four interpretations. The devil is truly the seal in reality or the disbeliever. However, Allah, glorified and exalted is He, since He is the one who enabled him and allowed him, attributed the sealing to him just as an action is attributed to its cause. A fourth interpretation is that since they were certainly cut off and determined not to believe, and the signs and warnings do not benefit them, nor do the kindnesses that are achieved or brought near, if they were given them, there remained—after the certainty that there is no way for them to believe willingly and by choice—no path to their faith except coercion and compulsion. If there remained no path except that Allah compels and forces them, and then He did not compel them nor force them so that the purpose of the obligation would not be invalidated, He expressed the abandonment of coercion and compulsion by the seal, indicating that they are those whose matter has reached a point of determination on disbelief and persistence in it to a degree that they cannot be deterred from it except by coercion and compulsion. This is the utmost description of their obstinacy in error and their rampantness in misguidance and wrongdoing. A fifth interpretation is that it is a narration of what the disbelievers used to say mockingly, from their saying: 'Our hearts are in coverings from what you call us to, and in our ears is deafness, and between us and you is a barrier.' An example of this in narration and mockery is the saying of Allah, glorified and exalted is He: 'Those who disbelieved from the People of the Book and the polytheists will not cease until the clear proof comes to them.' If you say: The wording allows that the ears are included in the ruling of the seal and in the ruling of the covering. [Mahamud, may Allah have mercy on him, said: 'The wording allows that the ears are included in the ruling of the seal and in the ruling of the covering... etc.' Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said that my grandfather, may Allah have mercy on him, used to mention this and add that since the ears and hearts were covered, it was more appropriate to use the seal for them, while the eyes, since they were exposed and their perception was related to their surface, were more suitable for the covering.] So which one should be relied upon? I say: It is on their inclusion in the ruling of the seal due to His saying, glorified and exalted is He: 'And He sealed upon their hearing and their hearts, and He made a covering upon their sight.' And they were stopped at their hearing without their hearts. If you say: What is the benefit in the repetition of the preposition in the saying: 'And upon their hearing'? I say: If it were not repeated, it would have been a unification of the hearts and ears in one transitive action. When a separate transitive action for the ears was introduced, it was more indicative of the severity of the sealing in both instances. He mentioned hearing as he mentioned the belly in His saying: 'Eat in some of your bellies, so you may be righteous.' They do that when they are assured of no confusion. If there is no assurance, as in your saying: 'Their horse,' and 'their garment,' when you intend the plural, they reject it. You may say: Hearing is originally a noun, and nouns are not pluralized. So the original indicates it by the plural of ear in His saying: 'And in our ears is deafness,' and that you may consider it as an omitted addition: meaning 'and upon the senses of their hearing.' Ibn Abi Abla read: 'And upon their hearing.' If you say: Why did Abu Amr and Al-Kisai not prevent the inclination of 'their eyes' due to the letter of elevation which is the sad? I say:

Because the broken ر (raa) overcomes the elevated letters, due to its repetition as if it has two breaks in it. This is the most helpful thing for inclination, and it causes what is not inclined to be inclined. The sight is the light of the eye, and it is what the seer sees with and perceives the visible things. Just as insight is the light of the heart, and it is what enables one to perceive and contemplate. They are like two subtle essences that Allah created in them as tools for seeing and understanding.

And it is recited (غشاوة) with a kasra and nasb. غشاوة: with a damma and rafa. غشاوة: with a fatha and nasb. غشوة: with a kasra and rafa. غشوة: with a fatha and both rafa and nasb. عشاوة: with an 'ayn that is not diacritical and rafa, from العشا.

And the punishment is like the nikal in structure and meaning, because you say: I punished for something, if I withheld from it.

As you say: I refrained from it. From it is العذب because it suppresses thirst and restrains it, unlike salt which increases it.

This is indicated by their naming it نقاخا because it breaks thirst, meaning it crushes it. And فراتا, because it refreshes the heart. Then it was broadened in meaning, so every severe pain was called punishment, even if it was not a nikal—meaning a punishment that restrains the wrongdoer from repeating the act.

The difference between العظيم (great) and الكبير (big) is that العظيم is the opposite of الحقير (insignificant), and الكبير is the opposite of الصغير (small). So the العظيم is as if it is above the الكبير, just as الحقير is below the صغير. They are used for both bodies and events.

You say: a great and big man, meaning his body or his significance. The meaning of the indefiniteness is that upon their eyes is a type of coverings unlike what people are familiar with, which is the covering of blindness to the signs of Allah. And they have among the great pains a type that is immense, the essence of which only Allah knows.

O Allah, save us from Your punishment and do not subject us to Your wrath, O Vast Forgiver.