Tafsir of Al-Mu'minoon 23:35

(Does he promise you that you, if…)

This is an initiation to affirm what preceded it regarding their rebuking of following him, peace be upon him, by denying the occurrence of what he calls them to believe in and deeming it far-fetched. His saying, the Exalted: (that you) is on the assumption of a preposition—meaning: that you—and it is permissible not to assume one, as in the expression: "I promised you the good."

(if you die) – with a kasra on the mīm from "māta yamātu," and it has been recited with a ḍamma from "māta yamūtu."

(and become dust and bones) – meaning: some of your parts, such as flesh and the like, become dust, and others become decayed bones stripped of flesh and nerves. Dust is mentioned first due to its long-standing status in being deemed impossible [to resurrect] and its transformation from visible parts, or [it means] your predecessors become pure dust and your successors become bones.

His saying, the Exalted: (that you) is a corroboration for the first "that you" (annakum), because of the length of the separation between it and its predicate, which is His saying, the Exalted: (are brought forth).

(and if…) is an adverbial phrase related to it; meaning: does he promise you that you will be brought forth from your graves alive as you were previously, if you die and become dust and bones?

Al-Farrā’, al-Jarmi, and al-Mubarrad chose this parsing. It does not follow from this that the bringing forth occurs at the time of death, as is not hidden, contrary to what was imagined by Abū Nizār, nicknamed "King of the Grammarians," which al-Sakhāwī refuted and Jalāl al-Suyūṭī narrated from him in al-Ashbāh. What is narrated from Sībawayh is that (that you) is a substitution for the first (that you), and it contains the meaning of corroboration. The predicate of the first "that" is omitted due to the indication of the predicate of the second one upon it; meaning: does he promise you that you will be resurrected if you die? This omitted predicate is the agent of "if." It is not permissible for (if you die) to be the predicate because an adverb of time cannot be a predicate for a physical body, unless it is interpreted with the omission of a genitive; meaning: "that your bringing forth, if you die, is permissible." Al-Mubarrad rejected the substitution because it would be a non-independent [phrase], as the predicate of the first "that" was not mentioned.

Al-Akhfash held that (that you are brought forth) is interpreted as a verbal noun raised by an omitted verb, estimated as: "your bringing forth occurs." Based on this estimation, it is permissible for the conditional sentence to be the predicate of the first "that," and the answer to "if" is that omitted verb. It is also permissible for that verb to be the predicate of "that" and to be the agent of "if." Some narrate from al-Akhfash that he makes (that you are brought forth) the subject of "if," just as he makes the departure in your saying: "On Friday is the departure," the subject of "Friday," in the sense of: "The departure is settled on Friday."

Some permitted that (that you are brought forth) be a nominal sentence acting as the subject, and (if you die) be the predicate, in the sense of: "your bringing forth is if you die," and to make the sentence the predicate of the first "that." He said in al-Baḥr: "This is an easy derivation with no burden in it," and al-Sakhāwī attributed it in Safar al-Sa‘ādah to al-Mubarrad. What the eloquence of the noble arrangement necessitates is what we mentioned from al-Farrā’ and those with him. In the recitation of ‘Abd Allāh: (Does he promise you if you die) with the omission of the first (that you).