Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:38

(And they swore by Allah) – This commences a clarification of another facet of their falsehoods, which is their denial of the Resurrection. According to the Kashshaf and others, this is a conjunction to the Almighty’s saying: (And those who associated partners said...). It is said that because the first instance involved the denial of monotheism, and this involves the denial of the Resurrection—both being grave matters of disbelief and ignorance—the conjunction between them is appropriate. The pronoun also refers to the people of Mecca, meaning they swore by Allah (their strongest oaths)—a verbal noun (masdar) used as a circumstantial qualifier (hal), meaning: exerting themselves intensely in their oaths—(that Allah will not resurrect those who die.)

This is based on the premise that the dead person becomes non-existent and perishes, and that resurrection is the restoration of that which has ceased to exist, and that restoring the non-existent is impossible. The philosophers held this view of impossibility; none of the theologians concurred with them in this claim except for the Karramiyya and Abu al-Husayn al-Basri among the Mu'tazila. They offered arguments for this which the investigators have refuted. Some claimed it is a matter of necessity and that whatever is mentioned in its clarification are merely reminders of it. The Imam conveyed from Sheikh Abu Ali ibn Sina that he said: "Everyone who returns to their sound innate disposition (fitra) and casts off inclination and bias from themselves, their clear intellect testifies that the restoration of the exact same non-existent entity is impossible." In the swearing of these disbelievers regarding the non-existence of the Resurrection, there is an indication—as mentioned in the Tafsir—that they claim necessary knowledge of this.

You know, however, that the restoration of the exact same non-existent entity is permissible, as is the view of the majority of theologians; thus, there is no issue with the Resurrection at all. As for if we were to say that restoration is not permissible due to the existence of a definitive proof for that, it has been said: We commit to the assertion that no part of the body ceases to exist, such that the resurrection would necessitate the restoration of the non-existent. Rather, what occurs to it is dispersion, and what occurs to it at the Resurrection is gathering; thus, there is no restoration of something that has ceased to exist. There is debate on this, even if it is supported by the story of Ibrahim, peace be upon him. Hence, Mawla Mir Zahid said: "There is no escape except by asserting the persistence of the abstract soul, and that the resurrected body is like the body that existed in the world, not the exact same one in identity." This does not contradict the law of justice, for the agent is only the soul. The body is in the position of a knife relative to the cutting; just as the effect resulting from the cutting—in terms of praise, blame, reward, and punishment—belongs to the cutter, not the knife, likewise the effect resulting from human actions belongs to the soul, and it is the soul that experiences pleasure or pain, whether intellectually or physically. Therefore, there is no contradiction of justice. As for the manifest texts indicating the return of that specific person himself, they are interpreted figuratively to account for the definitive proof indicating impossibility. This is done by saying: The intended meaning is the restoration of its matter with a form that is the most similar of forms to the first form. Ponder this. In Surah Ya-Sin, God willing, the investigation of this matter will arrive in the most perfect way.

It is reported from Ibn al-Jawzi and Abu al-'Aliyah that this verse was revealed because a Muslim man demanded a debt from a pagan man. Among the things the Muslim said was: "And what I hope for after death." The pagan said: "Are you really being resurrected after death?" Then he swore by Allah that Allah would not resurrect those who die. So Allah the Almighty related that and refuted it with the most eloquent refutation in His saying: (Rather)—to confirm the negation, meaning: Yes, He will resurrect them—(it is a promise)—a verbal noun confirming what is indicated by "Rather," since it has no meaning other than promising the Resurrection and informing about it; this is called a confirmation of itself. It is also permissible for it to be a verbal noun for an omitted verb, meaning: He promised that as a promise—(binding upon Him)—an adjective for "a promise," the intent being a promise He is bound to fulfill; otherwise, the promise itself is not binding upon Him. The binding nature of the fulfillment is due to the impossibility of a breach in His promise, or because the Resurrection is among the requirements of wisdom—(in truth)—another adjective for "a promise," which is a confirmation if it means "fixed and realized," and a founding assertion if it means "not in vain." Or it may be in the accusative case as a verbal noun for an omitted verb, meaning: It is true in truth—(but most people)—due to their ignorance of the affairs of Allah the Almighty, such as His knowledge, power, wisdom, and other attributes of perfection, and what is and is not permissible for Him, and their lack of understanding of the secret of creation and its ultimate goal, and that the Resurrection is what wisdom requires—(do not know)

(that He, the Almighty, will resurrect them.) He censured them for the lack of knowledge of the Resurrection, not for the knowledge of its non-existence which they falsely claim, according to what the apparent nature of their oath necessitates, so that the censure of that might be known by way of implication. It is also permissible that it is to indicate that what they possess is far from being called knowledge; rather, it is pure conjecture and sheer ignorance. Estimating the object of "do not know" as what I have stated is the most appropriate for the context. It is also permissible that the estimation is: "They do not know that it is a binding promise upon Him," so they deny it, saying: (We and our forefathers have been promised this before; this is but myths of the ancients.)