Continuation of the commentary on Tafsir al-Jalalayn: “Likewise, Allah seals upon every arrogant, tyrannical heart” with the tanwin on “heart” and without it

Then we return to the words of the exegete, who says: "With tanween

Heart

قلب

and without it, and when the heart becomes arrogant, its owner becomes arrogant, and vice versa".
His statement: “and vice versa” is questionable, because it implies that the owner of the heart becomes arrogant before the heart. If you reverse the phrase: “When the heart becomes arrogant, its owner becomes arrogant” to “When the owner of the heart becomes arrogant, the heart becomes arrogant,” is this correct? No. But his intention, may Allah have mercy on him, is that the arrogance of the heart and the arrogance of the self are concomitant; if the heart becomes arrogant, the self becomes arrogant, and if the self becomes arrogant, that is evidence that the heart is arrogant.
“And this applies in both readings because the generality of the sealing encompasses all hearts, not because of the generality of the heart”. It appears that “hearts” is more appropriate...
Now, the author’s statement is that the generality here refers to the individual, not the individuals, meaning it refers to the entirety of the heart, not part of it, and it is not for the generality of hearts, meaning it is not for the generality of each heart individually. However, what he has adopted is not correct. Rather, we say it is for all hearts. The generality is derived from the word “seals” upon the heart, not part of it. If we say it is for the generality of hearts, it encompasses the entirety of the heart, and not the reverse. Furthermore, the apparent context, if we look at the context, what do we understand? Do we understand that all arrogant hearts are sealed, or do we understand that a single heart is sealed in its entirety, not in part? The former is undoubtedly the case; this is the apparent context. And this, as it is the apparent context, is also more comprehensive in meaning, because if it is said: “Likewise, Allah seals upon all arrogant, tyrannical hearts,” the sealing upon the heart includes the sealing upon its entirety, unless there is evidence that the intended meaning is the sealing upon part of it. In that case, the correct view is the opposite of what the author said.
The correct view is that this is for the generality of hearts, not for the generality of the heart. But I wonder if you understood the difference? Well. If we say it is for the generality of the heart, the meaning of the verse becomes: Allah seals upon the entire heart, not upon all hearts. This would exclude part of the heart; it is not sealed upon part, but upon the entire heart, though for example, it is upon the heart of a specific person.
If we say it is for the generality of hearts, the meaning of the verse becomes: Allah seals upon all arrogant hearts, in any person. If we say it is for the generality of hearts, it becomes general for the individual hearts. If we say it is for the generality of the heart, it becomes general for the single heart, meaning the other hearts are not mentioned. This is the point of difference.
But we say the correct meaning of his statement: means from all people. And if he says: “Sealed upon the heart,” the meaning is that it is upon the entire heart, unless it is specified that the intended meaning is part of the heart...
Yes, and the sealing is not divisible. The sealing is a seal upon the heart with no opening from which it can escape. ... Hearts, in terms of individuals, are divided into three categories, but a single heart is not divisible. ... This is the meaning of “not part of it.” Therefore, the author’s statement is questionable from several angles; the more you reflect on it, the more you realize it is an error. The commentator says: “So let him reflect”. We reflected on it and found it to be incorrect.