Tafsir of Al-Qasas 28:62

"And [recall] the Day He will call to them and say..."

It is a conjunctive clause to [the phrase] "the Day of Resurrection," despite their difference in title, even if they are identical in essence. Alternatively, it is in the accusative case due to an implied verb [such as]: "Remember." His calling them—Exalted is He—may be through an intermediary or without one; it is a call of humiliation and rebuke.

"...'Where are My partners whom you used to claim?'"

That is, whom you used to claim were My partners. Za‘ama (to claim/allege) is a verb that takes two objects, as in the poet's saying: And the one who has lived, O Umm Malik, shall die, And I did not reckon you, concerning that, to be immune.

Both objects are omitted here because of the confidence in the indication toward them, similar to [the proverb]: "Whoever hears, will imagine [it]." In al-Kashshaf, it is permissible to omit both objects in the category of zanna (to think/suppose), though it is not valid to restrict it to only one of them. Some have claimed that the invalidity of restricting it to one is the more correct view and that it is the position held by the majority. Al-Akhfash said: If these verbs—zanna and its sisters—enter upon anna, as in [the phrase] zannantu annaka qa'im (I thought that you were standing), the second object is omitted, and the underlying structure is zannantu qiyamaka ka'inan (I thought your standing to be occurring), because the [clause introduced by the] fatha-voweled anna is interpreted as a singular noun. Sibawayh holds that in such a case, anna along with what follows it, blocks the place of the two objects. The Kufans permitted the omission of the first [object] if something else blocks the place of the second, as in the category of the subject/predicate, such as A-qa'imun akhuwaka? (Are your brothers standing?), so they say, Hal zannanta qa'iman akhuwaka? (Do you think your brothers are standing?).

Abu Hayyan said: If there is evidence indicating one of the two [objects], it is permissible to omit it, as in the saying: As if there was no [parting] between [us] when there was later a meeting, But I do not reckon a meeting [to occur]—meaning, I do not reckon a meeting [to occur] after the parting.

The author of al-Tuhfah said: It is permissible to restrict the usage in the category of kasawtu (to clothe) to one of the two objects, with or without evidence, because the first of the two is not the same as the second. Some have permitted the omission of the first [object] when it is the same as the [semantic] agent, such as His saying—Exalted is He—: "And let not those who disbelieve think that they are going to frustrate [God]"—meaning: Let not those who disbelieve think themselves to be frustrating [Him].

Al-Tibi said: Regarding the non-omission in cases other than what has been mentioned, and the permissibility of omission in [the specified] case, perhaps the secret is that these verbs are modifiers for the contents [of the sentences], entering upon nominal sentences to clarify their state; for the attribution may be based on knowledge or on supposition. If one were to restrict the sentence to only one of its two sides due to a contextual clue, it might suggest that the one toward whom the speech is directed, and the one whose affair is being emphasized, is the mentioned side, while the non-mentioned side is not of concern. Yes, if the subject and the object are one and the same thing, the matter is easier. It is mentioned from the author of al-Iqlid what supports this. The author [Al-Alusi]—may God Almighty sanctify his resting place—has discoursed at length on this position.

Ibn Hisham claimed that it is more appropriate here to imply: "those whom you used to claim that they were My partners," because the claim in the Revelation does not occur with two explicit objects, but rather with their connective [clause], as in His saying—Exalted is He—: "Where are your partners whom you used to claim [as partners]?" There is room for debate in this. The apparent meaning is that the "partners" refers to whomever was worshipped other than God Almighty, whether it be an angel, a jinn, a human, a star, an idol, or other than that.