Tafsir of Maryam 19:66

Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Ibn Jurayj that this was revealed regarding al-'As ibn Wa'il. From 'Ata' via Ibn 'Abbas, it is stated that it was revealed regarding al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah; it is also said to be about Abu Jahl. Al-Kalbi stated that it concerns Ubayy ibn Khalaf, who took a decayed bone, crumbled it with his hand, scattered it in the wind, and said, "So-and-so claims that we shall be resurrected after we die and become like this? This is something that will never happen!"

The "Al" (definite article) in "al-insan" (the man), according to one view, is for al-'ahd (specific reference), intending one of these individuals. It is also said that it refers to a specific group, namely the disbelievers who deny resurrection. Many have stated that it is permissible for the "Al" to be generic (lil-jins), and that there is a metaphorical shift (majaz) in the subject, where the genus of mankind is mentioned but some of its individuals are intended—just as the whole is used to refer to some of its parts. Alternatively, it may be a metaphor in the attribution (majaz fil-isnad), where what was issued by some is attributed to the whole, as when it is said: "The tribe of so-and-so killed a man," while the killer was but one of them. An example of this is the line: "The sword of the tribe of 'Abs has struck... [though] it was hit by the hands of Warqa' at the head of Khalid." This has been challenged on the grounds that such an attribution requires the consent of the others to the act, or their assistance in it, so that it might be counted as having come from all of them. There is no doubt that the rest of mankind—the believers—did not consent to this statement. Some who require this condition for validity answered that denial is rooted in the nature of all people before considering the evidence, so consent is attained in view of the natural disposition (tab') and constitution (jibillah).

Al-Khafaji said: The truth is that such consent is not a condition for the validity of the statement; rather, for its excellence, it requires a rhetorical point (nukta) necessitated by the context of speech, so that the act is considered as having been issued by all. Consent might be active support, or it might be the absence of aid and relief—which is why the Lawgiver (Shari'ah) made qasamah (collective liability for blood money) and blood money compulsory—or it might be something else. It seems the point here is that when they openly declared a statement that should not be uttered, and if uttered, the speaker should not be left without opposition or condemnation, their silence was placed in the position of consent to urge them to deny it, whether by word or deed.

It is also said: Perhaps the truth is that the attribution to the whole here is to point out the scarcity of those who believe in the resurrection in the manner reported by the Truthful one: "And most of the people, even if you desire it, are not believers." Contemplate this.

The present tense is used to evoke the past scene for the sake of its strangeness, or to indicate continuous renewal, as this statement continues to be renewed until the Trumpet is blown. The hamzah is for denial. Idha (when) is a circumstantial element related to a deleted verb indicated by "shall I be brought forth." They did not permit it to be related to the mentioned verb (brought forth) because what follows the lam does not act upon what precedes it. Ibn 'Atiyyah counted the intervention of sawfa as a barrier to grammatical government as well, but he was refuted by the verse: "And when she saw him secure, she found her [own condition]... and she said, 'Our father—thus sawfa (will) act,'" and other examples heard. It is reported from al-Radi that he made idha here conditional (shartiyyah) and made its governing agent the jaza' (the consequence). He said that the conditional word indicates the necessity of the consequence for the condition, and to achieve this purpose, it governs idha via its consequence, despite the fact that it follows a letter that does not act upon what precedes it—like the fa' in "Then glorify," or the in in your saying: "If you come to me, then I am honoring you," and the lam of inception in the verse: "When I have died, shall I be brought forth alive?" The preferred view of the majority is that idha here is adverbial, and what al-Radi mentioned is not universally agreed upon. The verification of this is in the books of grammar. In the speech, there is an elliptical conjunction due to the presence of evidence for it, meaning: "When I have died and become decayed bones, shall I, then, be brought forth..."

The lam here is merely for emphasis, which is why it is permissible to combine it with a particle of the future tense. This is according to the view that if it (the lam) enters the present tense, it restricts it to the future. As for the view that it does not restrict it, there is no need to claim its use for mere emphasis, but the first is the well-known view. The ma in idha ma is also for emphasis.

The intended meaning of "bringing forth" is bringing forth from the earth, or from the state of suffering; the first is literal, while the second is a metaphor for moving from one state to another. The adverbial phrase was placed with the hamzah of denial rather than the "bringing forth" because such bringing forth is not denied absolutely; what is denied is its occurrence at the time of the meeting of these two conditions. Thus, the adverb was brought forward because it is the location of the denial, and the original rule for that which is denied is that it follows the hamzah. It is also possible that the intent is to deny that specific time itself—meaning the denial of the arrival of a time in which there is life after death—suggesting that such a time will never exist. This is more eloquent than denying life after death, as it implies its denial by way of proof. Some did not assume a deleted conjunction and considered the time of death as an extended period, not merely the first moment the soul leaves the body, as is the immediate understanding. It is also said: There is no need for all of this, because if they considered it impossible in the state of death, they would know it to be impossible when they are decayed remains by way of stronger reason. In any case, there is no ambiguity in the verse.

A group, including Ibn Dhakwan (with a difference of opinion reported from him), recited "Idha" without the interrogative hamzah, while it is implied along with it because the meaning indicates it. It is also said: there is no implication, and the meaning is to inform by way of mockery and ridicule of the one who says that. Talha ibn Musarrif recited "sa-ukhraj" (I will be brought forth) with the sin of the future, without the lam. According to this, idha is related to the mentioned verb, which is correct. In another narration from him, it is "la-sa-ukhraj," with both the sin and the lam. Al-Hasan and Abu Haywah recited "ukhraj" (I will be brought forth) in the active voice.