Tafsir of Al-Isra 17:49

And they said: “When we are bones and fragments.” This is conjoined to [the verb] darabu (they set forth). Having expressed astonishment at their setting forth of examples, [Allah] conjoined to it another matter which is also a cause for astonishment.

In al-Kashf, the most apparent [view] is that this—up to the completion of the three statements—is an explanation of “They set forth examples for you.” Do you not see His saying, Exalted is He, “And set forth a parable for them”? Explaining it as "they compared you" (mathaluka) is not apparent; rather, the apparent [meaning] is "they set up examples for you." There is no doubt that the coherence of the discourse, according to what we have mentioned, is more perfect. This is because, when He mentioned their mockery of him, peace and blessings be upon him, and of the Quran, He expressed astonishment at their mocking of its content—namely, the Resurrection—as an indication that it is more deserving of astonishment, for the intellect also points to it, albeit in a general way.

As for the interpretation of “They set forth examples for you” as "they compared you" (mathaluka), its direction is that it is conjoined to His saying, Exalted is He, “They strayed” (fadallu), as it is one of the paths of misguidance, or to an implied [verb] indicated by “How they set forth [examples] for you,” because its meaning is: they compared you and said, "a poet, a sorcerer, a madman," and they said, “When we are,” etc.

It is not hidden that according to the interpretation [the author of al-Kashf] chose, “said” is conjoined to “set forth”—that is, an explanatory conjunction. However, the apparent [conjunction] here would be fa (then/so), and there would be no need, based on what we mentioned, for the artifice of conjoining to an implied [verb], and the connection therein would not fall short of the connection he mentioned. Conjoining it to “strayed” is not commendable, because its inclusion with it under the scope of the fa is not apparent. The objection to the interpretation of mathaluka [on the grounds] that they did not compare him, peace and blessings be upon him, to a poet or sorcerer [as a single example], but rather said such and such at one time and another at another, and that the apparent [wording] should have been fika (about you) instead of laka (for you)—this objection is nothing, because what they mentioned was by way of analogy to disparage him, peace and blessings be upon him, and [due to] their inability to refute him. Laka (for you) is more apparent than fika (about you) because he, peace and blessings be upon him, is the one to whom this is directed.

I say: Consider whether there is any obstacle to conjoining “said” to “the wrongdoers say”, making this statement also a part of what they whisper to one another. Their announcing it at times does not prevent this classification. Likewise, the difference between the conjoined [verbs]—one past and one present—does not prevent conjunction. Yes, it requires a subtle point, and I do not think it is hidden, so reflect upon it.

Al-rufat (fragments) is that which is broken and decayed from everything. The pattern fa'al is frequent in that which is crushed and dispersed, like duqaq (dust/crumbs) and futat (fragments).

Ibn Jarir and others recorded from Mujahid that it is "the soil," and this is the view of al-Farra’. Ibn al-Mundhir and others recorded from Ibn Abbas that it is "dust." Al-Mubarrad said: It is everything that is crushed and which has reached an extreme in its crushing. These are closely related views.

The interrogative hamza is for denial, indicating the completeness of their finding [the Resurrection] far-fetched and their rejection of [the idea of] resurrection after matters have reached this outcome, as if they said: "That shall never happen at all."

The origin of this [denial] is that there is a contradiction between the freshness of the living body and its tenderness—which is responsive to the [soul’s] connection that necessitates life—and the dryness of the decayed bones, which necessitates disintegration, which in turn necessitates the absence of life.

Idha (when) here, as in al-Durr al-Masun, is purely for indicating time (zorfiyyah). The operative word for it is what is indicated by His saying, Exalted is He, “Shall we indeed be resurrected?”—not the word itself, because inna has the priority of place (sadr), so what is after it cannot act upon what is before it. Likewise, the interrogation—even if it is for emphasis—while interrogation with a verb is better, namely nuv'athu (we are resurrected) or nu'adu (we are returned), which is the focus of the denial. Its restriction to the aforementioned time [is to] strengthen the denial of the Resurrection by directing it towards a state incompatible with it. Otherwise, the apparent state of their affairs is that they deny life after death even if the body were in its [original] state.

It is possible that it is conditional, and its response is implied—that is, "shall we be resurrected" or something similar—which is the operative word for it. It is said that [the condition] is the condition itself, and the meaning is: "Shall we be resurrected while we have been fragments at one time?" This is the view of some grammarians, though it is not famous nor relied upon. Adorning the sentence with inna and the lam is for emphasizing the denial, not for denying the emphasis, as might be imagined from the surface of the composition. The basis of their denial is not that they are currently "resurrected" while they are bones and fragments, as might appear from the surface of the nominal sentence; rather, it is their potentiality and readiness for it. Its meaning returns to the denial of the Resurrection after that state, and it contains such an indication of their extremism in disbelief and their persistence in misguidance that there is no addition beyond it. This was stated by some of the verifiers.

“A new creation” is in the accusative case as an object (maf'ul mutlaq) for mub'athun (resurrected), from a root other than its own verb, or as a state (hal), provided that "creation" (khalq) carries the meaning of "created" (makhluq). It is singular because of the unity of the essence, even if the meaning of the passive participle is intended, i.e., "being created."