Tafsir of Al-Mu'minoon 23:37

(It is not but our worldly life): Its original form is "The life is nothing but our worldly life." Then the pronoun was placed in the position of "the life," because the predicate points to it and clarifies it. Thus, the pronoun refers to a deferred [antecedent], and such reference is permissible in certain instances, such as when it is explained by the predicate, as is the case here. This is what they have stated.

It has been objected that the predicate is described [by an adjective], and therefore the adjective is observed in its pronoun, as is well-known regarding a pronoun returning to a described noun. In that case, the estimation would be: "Our worldly life is nothing but our worldly life."

The response to this is that the pronoun may refer to the described noun without its adjective. As for the latter, it reverts to accepting that the pronoun refers to what is understood from the genus of "life," in order for the predication to yield what they intended, which is the negation of the Resurrection. It is as if they said: "There is no life but our worldly life." From this, one knows the error of those who said it is like the saying: "My hair is my hair." Included in this category, according to one view, is their saying: "The Arabs say whatever they wish," and the verse: "It is the soul; whatever you burden it with, it bears; and for time, there are days that pass and act justly."

In al-Kashf, it is stated that the meaning is not "The soul is the soul," because the second [term] would not then serve as an explanation, nor the sentence following it as a clarification. Rather, the pronoun refers to a mental concept alluded to by what follows it, as in "This is your brother." Concluded. So reflect, and do not be heedless.

His saying, the Exalted: (We die and we live) is a sentence explaining what they claimed—that life is [only] the worldly life. By this, they meant that some of us die and others are born, and so on. It is not intended by "life" a life after death, for the sentence would not then be suitable as an explanation, nor would its speaker be censured, and it would contradict their saying: (And we are not to be resurrected.)

It has been said: They intended by "death" the non-existence prior to existence, or they intended by "life" the survival of their children, for the survival of children is in the status of the life of the parents. Its remoteness [from the intended meaning] is not hidden. Similar to this—according to what has been said, though I do not see it as such—is that the people were proponents of reincarnation (tanasukh). Their "living" consists of the attachment of the soul that has departed from their bodies to other elemental bodies that have evolved through stages until they are prepared for that departed soul to attach to them. Zayd, for instance, when he dies, his soul attaches to another body that has been prepared in the womb for this attachment, then it is born. When it dies, his soul attaches to another body in the same manner, and so on, ad infinitum. This is the doctrine of some of the Tanasukhiyyah, the Malyun and Nahliyun.

It is possible to say: This is on the order of His saying, the Exalted, to Jesus, peace be upon him: (I am causing you to die and raising you to Me), according to one interpretation, for the conjunction here is with "and" (waw), which does not necessitate sequence. Therefore, it is permissible that the life they meant is the life before death. It is also possible that they said: "We live and we die," but when it was narrated from them, it was said (We die and we live) to be more in accordance with His saying, the Exalted: (It is not but our worldly life). Then, the intent behind their saying (And we are not...) is the continuation and emphasis of the negation.