Then he likens their determination on disbelief, and that there is no way for them to be guided, by making them like those who are shackled and restrained. They do not turn towards the truth, nor do they incline their necks towards it, nor do they lower their heads before it. They are like those caught between two walls, unable to see what is in front of them or what is behind them. They have no contemplation or vision, and they are blind to the signs of Allah. If you say: What is the meaning of His saying, 'So it is to the chins'? I say: Its meaning is that the shackles reach to the chins, fastened to them. This is because the collar of the shackle around the neck of the shackled person has its ends meeting beneath the chin, with a ring in which the head of the pole is rarely found from the ring to the chin. It does not allow him to lower his head or to place his back down. He remains restrained. The restrained one is he who raises his head and lowers his gaze. It is said: 'The camel was restrained, so it raised its head.' From this comes the two months of 'Qamah', because the camels, when they arrive in them, are disturbed by the cold water, so they restrain themselves. These are the two months of 'Qanun'. From this: 'I jumped into the flour.' If you say: What do you say about the one who made the pronoun refer to the hands and claimed that since the shackle gathers the hand and the neck – and for this reason it is called a gatherer – mentioning the neck indicates the mention of the hands? I say: The correct view is what I have mentioned to you, and the evidence for it is His saying, 'So they are restrained.' Do you not see how the restraint is made a result of His saying, 'So it is to the chins'? If the pronoun were for the hands, the meaning of the cause for restraint would not be apparent. Leaving the clear truth for the ambiguous falsehood is indeed a mistake. If you say: Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, read 'in their hands' and Ibn Mas'ud read 'in their right hands', can you allow for these two readings that the pronoun refers to the hands or to the right hands? I say: This is rejected, even if the forced implication of the pronoun being for the shackles is not apparent, and the meaning is as I have mentioned.

Sada with a فتح and ضم. It was said: What was from the actions of people is with a فتح, and what was from the creation of Allah is with a ضم. 'So We covered their eyes' means: We covered them and placed a veil over them so that they could not look at what is visible. And from Mujahid: 'So We covered them' means: We clothed their eyes with a veil. And it was recited with the ع of عشا. It was said: It was revealed concerning Banu Makhzum. This is because Abu Jahl swore that if he saw Muhammad praying, he would smash his head. So he approached him while he was praying, with a stone to strike him with. When he raised his hand, it became fixed to his neck, and the stone stuck to his hand until they struggled to free it. He returned to his people and informed them. Another Makhzumi said: I will kill him with this stone, so he went. Allah blinded his eyes. [This was narrated by Ibn Ishaq in the Sirah in a long discussion. Abu Na'im narrated it in the Dalail through Ibn Ishaq: Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Sa'id, or Ikrimah, narrated from Ibn Abbas that Abu Jahl said: I pledge to Allah that I will sit tomorrow for Muhammad with a stone that I can hardly carry, and when he prostrates in his prayer, I will smash his head with it. He mentioned something similar until he said: His hands became fixed on his stone, until he threw the stone between his hands. Its origin is in Al-Bukhari through Ikrimah from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both.]