Exegesis of the saying of Allah the Exalted: << So, because they broke their covenant, We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort the words from their contexts and have forgotten a share of what they were reminded of.

Then Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, said: The fā' is a conjunction, and conjunction with the fā' indicates sequence. If the conjunction is of an action to an action, it indicates causality along with sequence. So if I say: "Zayd came, then 'Amr," this is pure sequence, because the conjunction here is of a single word to a single word. But if a clause is conjoined to a clause, it may indicate causality along with sequence, which is the common case, such as saying: "So-and-so disbelieved, so he was in the Fire," or "So-and-so believed, so he was in Paradise," meaning by cause of it. Sometimes it is for mere sequence, as in the saying of the Exalted: Here, is after the coming of the calamity. So here, I said that this fā' is a conjunction that indicates sequence and indicates causality, even though the bā' that follows it also indicates causality. The bā' is for causality and is a preposition, and mā is a source particle, and the sign of the source particle that turns what follows it into a source is that it turns what follows it into a source. So here, I said that it is a source particle, but the correct view is that it is superfluous, because what follows it is a verb, meaning "by their breaking of their covenant." So the mā here is superfluous for emphasis. Mā comes as superfluous, as a source particle, as a relative pronoun, and as a conditional particle. Some people gathered its meanings in a single verse, saying:
The meanings of mā are many; if you aim to count them, keep to a sound verse of poetry.
You will understand the condition of connection, so marvel at its negation with "kaf" and the negation of Zayd, its exaltation, and its source.
Listen, on the condition that you do not memorize it beforehand. The one who memorized it now, beforehand? No, three times. Among the meanings we mentioned is that it is superfluous, as in this verse "with 'kaf' and the negation of Zayd"; this is superfluous. So if he asks: "What is the benefit of the superfluous?" We say the benefit is emphasis. And so it is with all superfluous letters, whether operative or not; their benefit is emphasis. Naqḍ is the opposite of 'aqd, meaning their dissolving of the covenant. And His saying: means that which Allah covenanted with them, which is His saying: So these people broke the covenant. Because of that, and al-lan (cursing) is expulsion and distancing from the mercy of Allah. So they—may Allah protect us from that—were expelled and distanced from the mercy of Allah, and Allah does not reach them with mercy. And whoever Allah curses, the cursers curse him, as 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said: , . And in the reading is an active participle, and is a descriptive adjective. Which is more common? The descriptive adjective is more common because it is a persistent description, as Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Like a pure heart and a beautiful appearance." So it, meaning the descriptive adjective, is persistent. If and , if two readings come, the meaning is that both matters are realized. So it is "hard" as a description, and "hard" as an action when there is what necessitates the softening of the heart, it hardens—may Allah protect us from that. So it is "hard" as a description and "hard" as an action. Pay attention! As we said in and , we said we combine the readings, so the meaning is that he is a king with authority, meaning a king who owns. Some kings of this world are kings who do not own, and many people own but are not kings. We all own wealth, but we are not kings. So "hard" and "hard" is close to this: "hard" is its persistent description, and "hard" is when something occurs that necessitates the softening of the heart, it hardens—may Allah protect us from that. . This is also from their misguidance—may Allah protect us from that—and their breaking of the covenant. Whose words? The words of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. And "kalim" is a collective noun for "kalamah" (word), and the plural is "kalamāt," but "kalim" is a collective noun. And the origin of taḥrīf (distortion) is change, changing a thing from its proper form. For this reason, you say: "The animal deviated," meaning its direction changed; "The ship deviated," its direction changed. So "they distort" means they change the words from their contexts. And changing the words from their contexts, in their case, is of two types: change in wording and change in meaning. Change in wording is that when they were told to say "ḥaṭṭah" (a reduction), what did they say? "Ḥaṭṭah" (wheat). They did not say "ḥaṭṭah" meaning a reduction, but they said "ḥaṭṭah" (wheat), "give us food." And when it became obligatory for the married fornicator to be stoned, they distorted that and said that this is for the lowly and not for the noble, and they began to stone the lowly, but they did not stone the noble. This is semantic distortion, meaning they interpreted the texts in a way other than what Allah intended. So the distortion by these people includes distortion of wording. Meaning from the contexts that Allah intended for them. "They forgot" can have two meanings: "they forgot" meaning they left, and "they forgot" meaning after being reminded. So the first is practical forgetting and the second is intellectual forgetting. Is the intended meaning the first or the second? Both. The intended meaning is "they forgot" meaning they left intentionally, and "they forgot" meaning they left due to lack of knowledge, meaning they forgot the knowledge they knew before. So forgetting is practical forgetting and intellectual forgetting.
So if someone asks: What is the evidence for dividing forgetting into this?
We say: Read the saying of Allah the Exalted: This is what kind of forgetting? Intellectual, intellectual forgetting. And read the saying of Allah the Exalted: This is practical forgetting; they forgot Allah, so He forgot them. This is also practical forgetting.
And His saying: means a share. And "ḥaẓẓ" (share) can be with good or with evil. So His saying, the Exalted: Is this a praiseworthy share or not? Praiseworthy. And if he says: "So-and-so's share from the Hereafter is the Fire," this is blameworthy. means a share So they forgot a share of the Torah—meaning the speech now is about the Jews—they forgot a share of the Torah, they left it intentionally as a result of distorting the words from their contexts, or they forgot it in the sense that they forgot it after knowing it, and that is because their books were lost, and when they were lost, they stumbled in them and wrote in them what they wanted. So this is the aspect of forgetting that is the opposite of remembrance, and the forgetting that is the opposite of action.