Tafsir of Al-Qiyamah 75:4

"Nay, We are able..."

"Nay" (Bala) – meaning, We shall gather them after their dispersion, and their return to dust and fragments in the depths of the seas, the vast deserts, and wherever they may be, while We are qadirin (able). Qadirin is a circumstantial qualifier (hal) derived from the agent of the implied verb after "Nay," as Sibawayh stated. It has been said that it is in the accusative case as the predicate of kana (to be), as if to say: "Nay, were We not able in the beginning? Shall We then not be able in the repeating?" This, as you see, is [a matter of interpretation]. It is also said that it is in the accusative because it occupies the position of the verb "We are able" (naqdir); thus, the estimated meaning is "Nay, We are able." When it was placed in the stead of the verb, it became accusative. Makki reported this, but said it is far from correct, for it would necessitate the accusative of qa’im (standing) in the sentence "I passed by a man standing" (marartu bi-rajulin qa’iman) because it is in the position of "standing" (yaqum). So, contemplate this.

Ibn Abi ‘Abla and Ibn al-Sumayqa‘ read qadirun (nominative), meaning: "We are able to fashion his fingertips." Banan is a collective noun whose singular is bananah. Al-Raghib explained it as the fingers, then added: "It is said they were named thus because through them are the affairs of human life set right, whereby he manifests what he desires." That is, he establishes his intentions through the smallness of these peripheral bones, such as the hands and feet. In the Qamus, al-banan refers to the fingers or their tips. Thus, the meaning is: We shall gather the bones, being able to compose their collection and return them to their original structure, and to fashion his fingertips—which are his extremities and the final part to be completed in his creation—or to fashion and join his phalanges together, despite their smallness and delicacy, just as they were at first, without deficiency or discrepancy, just as We are able regarding the large bones and those parts that are not extremities.

In the aforementioned state—that is, "being able to..." after the indication of restriction—there is an emphasis on the meaning of the verb. For gathering is among the actions that necessitate power; when it is qualified by absolute power, it is emphasized. The first interpretation of the meaning indicates the realization of the gathering, showing that there is no difference between the repetition and the beginning in terms of encompassing all the parts that constituted the structure or perfection of the body. The second interpretation indicates the attainment of a complete gathering, for if One is able to gather the most delicate parts—which are the most distant from being returned—then He is more able to gather the rest. This is perhaps more consistent with the context. From both, one learns the subtlety of specifying the banan (fingertips) for mention.

It is also said that the meaning is: "We shall gather them, and We are able to make his fingers and toes even—to make them a single thing like the foot of a camel or the hoof of an ass—and not distinguish between them, so that he would be unable to perform with them any of the things he performs with his separated, articulated fingers and fingertips, which are capable of various tasks, grasping, releasing, and facilitating his desired needs." This has been narrated from Ibn Abbas, Qatadah, Mujahid, ‘Ikrimah, and al-Dahhak. Perhaps the intent is: "We shall gather them, and We are able to fashion them at the time of gathering." The discourse thus provides the aforementioned hyperbole, but from another perspective: if He is able to recreate him while changing some parts, He is more able to follow the first model in its entirety. Abu Hayyan reported this from the majority, but qualified the fashioning as occurring in this world, and stated that there is a threat in the words, then followed this up by saying it is contrary to the apparent intended meaning of the discourse. The matter is as he said—if it were as he enacted, then do not be heedless.

It is not hidden that in the use of "Nay," the elision of the oath's response, the use of His saying, "Does man think," the observance of the stylistic manner, the oath by the Day of Resurrection and the one being resurrected, and then the preference for the word husban (thinking/assuming), and the use of the interrogative particle of denial assigned to the generic, followed by the particle of affirmation and the circumstantial state—all these are forms of hyperbole in verifying the required objective, aggrandizing it, and disparaging the one who is unprepared for it; [these are] among its many wonders.