Tafsir of An-Naml 27:66

{Nay, their knowledge has become exhausted concerning the Hereafter} is an idrab (disjunctive particle) relating to what preceded, in a manner that serves to emphasize and confirm it. The root of iddaraka is tadāraka; the tā was assimilated into the dāl, causing it to become quiescent, and thus a connecting hamza was introduced. It is derived from the phrase "Such-and-such a tribe tadārakū" when they follow one another in destruction. This is the intended meaning for those who interpret tadāruk here as dissipation and annihilation. Otherwise, the primary meaning of tadāruk is following one another and concatenation in an absolute sense.

{And in the Hereafter} relates to their knowledge. The verb for "knowledge" can take the preposition fī (in), just as it can take bi (with), and here it is in the sense of bi, as stated by al-Farra’, Ibn ‘Atiyyah, and others. The meaning is: "Nay, their knowledge regarding the matter of the Hereafter—which the aforementioned mention of Resurrection is but one of its conditions—has followed one another until it was severed and perished." They are left with absolutely no knowledge of anything that will occur therein, despite the availability of its proofs. This is an escalation from describing them with severe ignorance to describing them with even more severe ignorance.

This "exhaustion" of their knowledge is not in the sense that they once possessed true knowledge of it which then vanished bit by bit; rather, it is used metaphorically. It treats the causes and foundations of knowledge—such as intellectual and scriptural proofs—as if they were the knowledge itself, and views their gradual loss of consideration for these proofs as a process of continuous dissipation until they are cut off. It is also possible that the speech implies an added term, meaning "the causes of their knowledge have become exhausted," with tadāruk being a metaphor for the aforementioned decline.

{Nay, they are in doubt about it} is an idrab and a transition from their lack of knowledge concerning it to something even more severe, in the manner previously described; that is, their perplexity regarding it. It means: "Nay, they are in great doubt regarding the Hereafter itself and its realization," like one who is bewildered by a matter for which he finds no evidence, let alone the specific events that will occur therein.

{Nay, they are blind to it} is an idrab and a transition from describing them as doubters to describing them with something even more atrocious: that they are blind, their insights having become utterly defective to the point that they can barely perceive the path to knowledge of it—namely, the proofs indicating that it is inevitably occurring. Thus, the meaning is: "They are blind to its proofs," or "blind to everything that would lead them to the Truth," within which the proofs of the Hereafter are included primarily.

{From it} (minhā) relates to {blind} (‘amūn), placed before it in observance of the verse-ending (rhyme). Perhaps it is constructed with min (from/of) rather than ‘an (about) to make the Hereafter the source and origin of their blindness. Disbelief in the ultimate outcome and the recompense causes a person to remain engrossed in satisfying the interests of his stomach and his private parts, neither contemplating nor gaining insight into anything beyond that.

It is also possible that iddāraka means "has strengthened and reached completion." Describing them as having complete and perfect knowledge of it is a form of mockery towards them, similar to when you say to the most ignorant of people, "How learned you are!" in a sarcastic manner. The essence of this mockery is a negation of their knowledge of the matter, similar to the previous interpretation, but in a more eloquent manner. Both idrab clauses are a progression from a vile description to an even viler one, similar to what has preceded. This is a sound interpretation, and the words of some researchers suggest it is more preferred than what we mentioned first.

It is also possible that iddāraka refers to "strengthening" in the sense that the causes of their knowledge—that the Resurrection is inevitably occurring—have been strengthened by categorical signs and brilliant proofs, and they have attained mastery of that knowledge, yet they remain ignorant of it. However, the implication of the noble structure that they are "ignorant" is not entirely clear.

Al-Kirmani said: "Tadāruk means following one another, and knowledge here refers to judgment and speech. The meaning is: 'Nay, their speech and judgments concerning the Hereafter followed one another [in rapid succession], and their discourse about it became frequent, with some denying it and others deeming it unlikely.'" In this there is what is in it [i.e., it is questionable].

It has been said: {In the Hereafter} relates to iddāraka. Al-Zajjaj and al-Tabarsi leaned toward this, and it is implied by some reports narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them). According to some, the meaning is: "Nay, their knowledge of what they were ignorant of in the world became firm in the Hereafter, when they saw it with their own eyes." Although the structure appears in the future tense (iddāraka), the past tense is used to signify the certainty of its occurrence.

It has also been said: Tadāruk is from the phrase "I tadāraka the matter of such-and-such person," meaning I remedied/corrected it. Its object here is omitted, meaning: "Nay, their knowledge remedied in the Hereafter what it had been ignorant of in the world," i.e., it corrected it. The essence of the meaning is: "Nay, they came to know that in the Hereafter, at a time when that knowledge could no longer benefit them." The use of the past tense is for the reason you know. It is not hidden that there is obscurity in the ordering of the three idrabs according to these two interpretations; so contemplate it.