Tafsir of As-Saffat 37:17

It is a mubtada’ (subject) whose khabar (predicate) has been omitted due to the indication of the khabar of inna (in the preceding verse) upon it. That is to say: "Or shall our first forefathers be resurrected also?" The sentence is conjoined to the sentence preceding it. This is one of the schools of thought regarding this type of structure.

The apparent view of Abu Hayyan in Sharh al-Tashil is that the omission of the predicate is mandatory. He stated: "Those who lean toward this school of thought say that the default principle in this issue is the conjunction of sentences; however, since they omitted the predicate due to the indication of what preceded it, they substituted the conjunction particle in its place. They did not estimate the omitted predicate in the wording at that point, lest it be a case of combining the substitute and that for which it is substituted. Thus, it resembles the conjunction of single terms, in the sense that there is nothing after the conjunction particle in the wording except a single term."

The second school of thought is that it is conjoined to the implicit pronoun within the khabar of inna, provided that the khabar is such that it bears a pronoun, and that the pronoun is emphasized, or that there is a separator between it and the conjoined term. Conjunction is considered weakest here. Ibn Hisham attributed this school—along with the preceding one—to the verifying scholars among the Basrans. However, the possibility of this here, without weakness, is debatable due to the separation by the hamza (interrogative particle). Abu Hayyan said: "The hamza of interrogation does not enter upon a conjoined term unless it is a sentence, lest the operation of what precedes the hamza be required upon what follows it, which is not permissible due to the hamza’s property of precedence." The response that the hamza here is for emphasizing the remoteness of the possibility—and thus is intended as preceding and entering upon the sentence in reality, despite being separated by what it is separated by—has been debated on the grounds that a particle is not repeated for emphasis without its operative domain. Furthermore, what is mentioned in grammar is that interrogation has precedence, without distinction between one that is emphatic or one that establishes a new meaning. Moreover, the claim that the hamza is intended as preceding weakens the reliance on separation by it, especially since it is a single letter; therefore, separation by it is not to be compared to separation by la (negation) in the Almighty’s saying: "We did not associate, nor did our fathers."

The third school is that it is a conjunction to the status (mahall) of inna along with what you know regarding it; it is apparent that, in this case, it is effectively a conjunction of sentences.

The fourth school is that it is a conjunction to the status of the noun of inna, because before its entry, it was in a position of raf’ (nominative). It is apparent that, in this case, it is a conjunction of single terms. It was objected that the raf’ was due to ibtida’ (the initial state), which is a non-explicit (ma’nawi) operator that was nullified by the explicit operator (inna). It was responded that its existence is as if it does not exist, due to its resemblance to the "extra" (za’id) in that it does not change the meaning of the sentence but only provides emphasis. It was also objected that the mentioned predicate, such as "resurrected" (mab’uthun) in the verse, would then be a predicate for both; the predicate of the mubtada’ has its raf’ caused by ibtida’ or the mubtada’ (or both), while the khabar of inna has its raf’ caused by inna. Thus, two operators would converge on one operative object. It was responded that grammatical operators are not actual causes but are akin to signs, so their convergence on one operative object does not cause harm. This, as you can see, is a matter of extensive discussion in its proper place.

In any case, the most preferable view is what preceded: that it is a mubtada’ whose predicate is omitted. Abu Hayyan stated: "The proponents of the last three views are in agreement on the permissibility of the first view," which supports the position of its priority. Regardless, the intent of the disbelievers is to increase the remoteness of the possibility of their fathers' resurrection, based on the fact that they were earlier, and thus their resurrection is further from their limited intellects.

Abu Ja’far, Shaybah, Ibn Amir, and Nafi’ (in one transmission) and Qalun read "Aw" (or) with a sukūn, as a conjunction particle, in which case the four possibilities apply, except that the conjunction to the pronoun in this reading is weak due to the complete lack of any separation.