Tafsir of As-Sajdah 32:10

(And they said) is a resumed statement, introduced to clarify their falsehoods by way of iltifat (shift in mode of address), signaling that the lack of gratitude for those blessings mentioned previously necessitates turning away from them and enumerating their crimes to others by way of exposure. It is narrated that the speaker was Ubayy ibn Khalaf, and the plural pronoun is used because the others consented to his statement.

(When we are lost in the earth) means: when we are scattered within it, having become dust mixed with its soil, such that we are no longer distinct from it. It is derived from dalla al-mata’ (the object was lost) when it goes missing. Or, it means: when we are hidden within it by burial, even if we do not turn into dust. Qutrub held this view and cited the verse of al-Nabigha mourning al-Nu'man ibn al-Mundhir: And his "mudhilluhu" (those who lost him) returned with clear sight, while Hazm and Na'il were left behind in al-Jawlan.

Yahya ibn Ya'mar, Ibn Muhaisin, Abu Raja', Talha, and Ibn Wathab read dalalna with a kasra on the lam. It is said: dalla, yadillu like daraba, yadribu, and dalla, yadillu like alima, ya'lamu. Both have the same meaning; the first is the famous, eloquent dialect, which is the dialect of Najd, and the second is the dialect of the people of al-'Aliyah.

Abu Haywah read dullilna with a damma on the dad and a kasra on the lam; this is also narrated from Ali (may Allah honor his countenance).

Al-Hasan, al-A'mash, and Aban ibn Sa'id ibn al-'As read sallalna with a sad and a fatha on the lam. This is attributed to Ali (may Allah honor his countenance) and Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both). Regarding al-Hasan, it is narrated that he read it with a kasra on the lam. It is said of it what is said of dalla (with the dad), with the addition of the root asalla (to make firm/solid) with a hamza, like the form af'ala. Al-Farra' said: The meaning is that we have become among the silla—which is the hard, solid earth—as if it were derived from salil (a clinking sound), because when dry, hard matter splits, it produces a sound. It is also said: We have putrefied, from salla, which is putrefaction. The earth is called silla because it is the bedrock of the world; the Arabs say, "Place the silla upon the silla." Al-Nahhas said: "We do not recognize sallalna in the language; rather, it is said asalla al-lahm (the meat became putrid) and salla and akhama and akhama when it putrefies." This is strange coming from him.

Ibn 'Amir read (idha) without the interrogative; the intent is to inform by way of mockery and sarcasm. The governing agent ('amil) for (idha) is what is indicated by His saying: "Are we to be in a new creation?" which is nub'athu (we are resurrected) or yujaddadu khalquna (our creation is renewed). It is not valid for the interrogative to be the agent because of the presence of the question, and neither of them acts upon what precedes it. What is mentioned—nub'athu or yujaddadu khalquna—is considered the answer to idha if it is taken as conditional (shartiyyah) rather than purely temporal (zarfiyyah). The hamza is for denial, and the intent is to emphasize the denial, not to deny the emphasis, as is the obvious inference from its placement before the particle; for it is grammatically deferred, though placed first due to its requirement to occupy the beginning of the sentence.

Nafi', al-Kisa'i, and Ya'qub read (anna) without the interrogative, in the manner mentioned previously.

"Nay, they are disbelievers in the meeting with their Lord." This is a disjunction and a shift from describing their disbelief in the resurrection to describing that which is more grievous and heinous: their disbelief in the meeting with the angels of their Lord at the time of death and all that follows it. It is also said: It is a disjunction and an escalation from doubt regarding the resurrection and viewing it as unlikely to the firm denial of it, based on the principle that the "meeting with the Lord" is a metonym for the resurrection. According to al-Khafaji, the fact that the previous interrogation was for denial does not harm this, as it resolves into denial. Reflect upon this.