Tafsir of An-Naml 27:84

"Until, when they arrive..." at the place of questioning, answering, debate, and reckoning.

"...He will say..."—that is, Allah (Mighty and Majestic is He)—reproaching them for their denial. This is not a question of inquiry, for such is impossible for Him (Mighty and Majestic is He), nor does the questioning of a sinner on the Day of Resurrection occur from any other than Him, such as the angels (peace be upon them), although it is possible according to one of the two interpretations of His saying: "Neither man nor jinn will be asked about his sin." The shift [to the third person] is intended to instill awe.

"Did you deny My verses..."—those that speak of the meeting of this day of yours—"...while you did not encompass them in knowledge?"

This is a circumstantial clause serving to increase the loathsomeness of the denial and its ultimate ugliness, and it confirms the denunciation and reproach. It means: Did you deny them upon the first impression, without looking into them with a scrutiny that would lead to the knowledge of their essence and the certainty that they are worthy of belief? According to what has been said, this is clear in that the intended "verses" here refer to the revealed signs, for they are the ones containing the proofs of truth and the evidence thereof—which they did not encompass with knowledge—despite it being incumbent upon them to contemplate and reflect upon them, rather than the Hour itself and what it contains.

Some eminent scholars have argued that the very nature of "denial" rejects the interpretation of "verses" as formative signs, such as miracles and the like, since there is no proposition in them that such a [term] would attach to. To intend the general [meaning] would require the assumption of taghlib (dominance of one sense over another), and [would imply] that denial means the rejection of their indication toward their intended meaning—just as the confirmation of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) in miracles and the like, in what pertains to signs in the self and the horizons—which is contrary to the apparent meaning. Thus, it is better to leave it to the apparent meaning and carry the "verses" to refer to the revealed signs.

It has also been said that it is a conjunction to "did you deny," and the interrogative hamza is for the denunciation of combining both [the denial and the lack of reflection] and to reproach them for it, as if it were said: "Have you combined the denial of My verses with the failure to reflect upon them?"

"Or what was it that you were doing?"—meaning, or what did you actually do with them? This is on the basis that the intention is to put them to shame, implying that they did nothing but deny. This is one of two views mentioned by al-Zamakhshari. He elaborated in al-Kashshaf that am (or) is continuous, and the origin is: "Did you deny My verses, or did you believe?" and the opposition is between the two verbs related to the verses. However, the first came in the form of a known, confirmed fact, while the second did not follow that pattern, signaling its negation. It is as if it were said: "Is it what is customary—denial—or has something new occurred?" The method of proof is that he made the counterpart the subject of doubt; he did not make the "belief" parallel to the "denial" in the questioning of its status. Rather, he doubted the existence of a counterpart to the denial, because His saying: "Or what was it that you were doing?" encompasses the denial mentioned first and its true reality. This is evidence that the interrogation was not used out of ignorance of the situation, but rather to shame and compel them toward the meaning of: "Tell me, woe to you, if another matter occurred?" [insisting] upon the assertion that nothing contrary to the first had occurred, and signaling that if he were asked about what he did, he would not answer except with what he presented first. He then said: "This is a plausible perspective."

The entry of am upon the interrogative ma (what) is permissible for this subtle point, as it has departed from the reality of interrogation to the affirmation of judgment—not of the counterpart, but of the first [action].

The second view: The meaning is that you had no deeds in the world except disbelief and denial of the verses of Allah (Mighty and Majestic is He), "Or what was it that you were doing?" other than that? He also elaborated in al-Kashshaf that am, while continuous, makes the opposition [to be] between the denial and every other deed related to the verses initially. The phrasing in the interrogative form is for the aforementioned subtle point, indicating that they had no deeds except denial and disbelief, as if they were not created for anything else, and for that reason, they did no other work. He rendered all their other deeds—due to the persistence of disbelief—as being disbelief itself, or as "no deeds at all." He then stated: "This is an extremely sound perspective." From this, it becomes clear that the entry of am upon interrogative nouns is not rejected if it departs from the reality of interrogation; it is an analogy of meaning. Even if maintaining the form of interrogation is also analogous in terms of wording, they prioritize the side of meaning in such cases and pay no attention to the form.

Abu Hayyan chose the view that am is disjunctive, estimated as bal (nay/rather), which is for shifting from one reproach to another, and there is no hint in this of the entry of an interrogation upon an interrogation. What preceded is deeper in significance.

Madha (what) can, in its entirety, be an interrogative in the accusative position as the predicate of kana (were), which is ta'malun (you were doing); or it can be nominative as the subject, and the clause after it is the predicate, with the connector omitted, meaning ta'malunahu (what you were doing). It is also possible that ma within it is interrogative, and dha is a relative pronoun meaning "the one which," where both are subject and predicate, and the clause following is the relative clause with the pronoun [referring back] omitted.

Abu Haywah recited it as ama dha with a light mim, and in this, the interrogative enters upon the interrogative, and you have heard its rationale.