Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:39

"To make clear to them that which they differ in" — this relates to what is indicated by "Nay" (in the preceding verse), which is "He will resurrect them." The pronoun refers to those who die, encompassing both believers and disbelievers. For the clarification is also for the believers; even though they were knowledgeable of this, when they witness the reality of the situation, the matter becomes manifest, and their knowledge reaches the rank of ‘ayn al-yaqin (the certainty of direct witnessing). That is, He resurrects them to make clear to them through that, and through what they obtain by witnessing the conditions exactly as they are and seeing them in their true forms, the matter "which they differ in" regarding the truth—a term encompassing all that they opposed of what the messengers sent among them brought. Resurrection is included within this primarily. Expressing this with the relative pronoun (alladhi) serves to indicate its magnitude and to signal the causality of what is mentioned in the relative clause for the clarification. The prepositional phrase is placed first to observe the ends of the verses.

"And that those who disbelieved in Allah—by associating partners, denying the bodily resurrection, and belying the messengers (peace be upon them)—might know that they were liars" in everything they say. This includes their statement: "Allah will not resurrect those who die," primarily.

In al-Bahr, it is mentioned that "to make clear" relates to the words of Allah, "And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger"—meaning, We sent him to make clear to them what they differed in, and that they were in error before his mission, fabricating lies against Allah—but the remoteness of this and the immediacy of the former interpretation is not hidden. Making the aforementioned clarification and knowledge the goal of the resurrection—as in Irshad al-‘Aql al-Salim—is considered in light of its appearance in the context of refuting opponents and nullifying the claims of the obstinate, which requires addressing what would deter them from opposition and lead them to submission to the truth. For when the disbelievers know that the realization of the resurrection is to make clear that it is the truth, and that they would know they were liars in denying it, it is more of a deterrent for them against denying it and more conducive to admitting it. This is because it indicates the firmness of the resolve to realize it, just as you say to one who denies that you pray: "I will surely pray, in spite of you, to demonstrate your lie." Moreover, the repetition of objectives is more indicative of the occurrence of the intended goal. Otherwise, the primary objective of resurrection, in terms of its essence, is the recompense, which is the ultimate goal for creation, which is bound by knowledge of Him (the Exalted) and worshiping Him. It was not mentioned here due to its frequent mention elsewhere and its fame.

Regarding the fact that the disbelievers' knowledge of their lying was not included under "the clarification"—for instance, by saying: "And that those who disbelieved were liars," but rather using the form of "knowledge"—this is because that is not something to which the "clarification" applies. Clarification is defined as revealing that which was obscure before, such that it is reported and then people differ in it—like the resurrection which the Quran spoke of, and regarding which the disagreeing parties differed. As for the lying of the disbelievers, it is not of this type. It is derived from his investigation in a parallel context that since the meaning of a report is a mental probability of truth or falsehood, and the meaning of clarifying the truth is revealing that meaning and cutting off the probability of its opposite after it had been a mental possibility, it was appropriate to attach the clarification to "that which they differ in" regarding the truth—for there is not much difference between truth and the right (al-haqq). Since lying is an incidental matter not indicated by the report such that clarification and revealing could apply to it—rather, it is the opposite of the report's meaning—that which applies to it is an inaugural knowledge; thus, it was appropriate to attach the knowledge that "they were liars" separately. So reflect on this.

It is said: Because the knowledge of what was mentioned is a corollary to that clarification, it was said "And that those who disbelieved might know" rather than "And to make those who disbelieved know." The attribution was restricted to them, as it did not say "And that they might know that those who disbelieved were liars," as a warning that their knowing [the truth of their falsehood] is the most important. It is said: This was not said because the believers' knowledge of what was mentioned had already been obtained previously. This was countered by the claim that the attainment of one level of knowledge does not preclude the attainment of a higher level; so why was it not said [the latter] to signal the attainment of this level of knowledge for them at that time? Perhaps that [criticism] contains an oversight of the speaker's intent.

It is permissible that the knowledge of the disbelievers regarding their being liars is intended as their punishment for their lying. It is as if it were said: "To reveal the truth to the believers and disbelievers, and for the disbelievers to be punished for the lies they used to say—that He (the Exalted) does not resurrect those who die, and the like." This is similar to saying to a criminal: "Tomorrow you will know your crime." In that case, the rationale for restricting the attribution to them is manifest, and it is as you see.

Some of the Shia claimed that the verse is about Ali (may Allah honor his face) and the Imams among his descendants (may Allah be pleased with them), and that it is one of the proofs for al-raj‘a (the return) which most of them believe in. This is a false claim, and the discourse on al-raj‘a is pure nonsense; it is hardly believed by anyone who believes in the resurrection. This has been clarified in the most perfect manner in al-Tuhfah al-Ithna ‘Ashariyyah. Perhaps the turn will come, if Allah wills, to its explanation. Regarding what Ibn Marduyah extracted from Ali (may Allah honor his face) that he said: "The saying of Allah (And they swore by Allah... the verse) was revealed concerning..."—it is not established as authentic. Even if we were to concede it, there is no proof in it for what they claim regarding al-raj‘a, as it could be said that he (may Allah be pleased with him) intended that it was revealed because of me, and that he (may Allah be pleased with him) is the man who demanded a debt of his from a man among the polytheists, so he said what he said, as passed before from Ibn al-Jawzi and Abu al-‘Aliyah. It was also extracted from Abu al-‘Aliyah by ‘Abd ibn Humayd, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Abi Hatim.

Sheikh Baha' al-Din deduced from the verse a proof that lying is the opposition of reality, and that belief [in one's claim] has no bearing [on the definition of a lie]. This is manifest, so understand.