Tafsir of Al-Jathiyah 45:25

(That is, concerning the fact that We shall resurrect the dead.) There was nothing held by them as an argument at all, except for this false statement, which is impossible to be considered a proof. Calling it an argument is a way of presenting their claim in the form of a proof for the sake of mocking them, or it is a matter of sarcasm among them, like saying: "a painful beating awaits them."

That is, their argument was nothing but that which is not an argument. The intent is to negate that they have any argument, for the failure of a thing to occur at a specific moment—such as the resurrection of their fathers, which they requested in the worldly life—does not necessitate its impossibility later, so as to make the resurrection impossible once the Day of Resurrection occurs.

The address in "Bring back" and "if you are" is directed at the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and the believers, for they are the ones upholding his statement regarding the resurrection, demanding that the disbelievers acknowledge it. It is also permissible that it be directed at him (peace and blessings be upon him) and the prophets (peace be upon them) who called to the resurrection, with the address having overridden the third person.

Ibn Atiyyah said: "Bring back" and "if you are" are from the perspective of addressing him (peace and blessings be upon him), and the intent is him, his followers, and the angel who mentions his descent with that, which is Gabriel (peace be upon him), and this is as you can see.

Al-Hasan, Amr ibn Ubayd, and Ibn Amir (according to what was narrated from him by Abd al-Hamid), and Asim (according to what was narrated by Harun and Husayn from Abu Bakr) read it as "their argument" (hujjatuhum) in the nominative case, making it the noun of kana (to be), and what follows it is the predicate. That is: "Nothing of things was their argument, except for this false statement."

The response to idha (when) is "their argument was not..." and it is not connected with fa, even though fa is necessary in that which is negated by ma when it falls as the response to a conditional particle, because idha is not a governing conditional particle, nor is it an original particle of conditionality. This is the secret behind Abu Hayyan's statement: Idha differs from the conditional particles in that its response, if it is negated by ma, does not take the fa, unlike the conditional particles which require the fa with it—for example: "If you visit us, then you have not treated us coldly." Thus, there is no need to posit an elliptical response for it, such as "they resorted to false arguments," contrary to Ibn Hisham. He provided evidence for the fact that what was mentioned occurs as a response, showing that the governing influence on idha is not for the response, due to the word ma (what) being at the beginning, which prevents it. There is no one who makes this distinction, and perhaps those who claim it has a governing influence argue that a broadness is allowed for adverbial phrases (zaraf) that is not allowed for others. Furthermore, the meaning is in the future tense due to the presence of idha; that is, their argument will be nothing other than their saying that.