Tafsir of Al-Mursalat 77:26

The words aḥyāʾan (the living) and amwātan (the dead) serve as objects of a deleted verb, not as objects of kifātā (a place of containment), because the generic noun—as well as the instrumental noun, as stated by the grammarians—does not govern the accusative case. That is, [the meaning is]: "Do We not make it [the earth] a containment that gathers and collects many living beings upon its surface, and countless dead within its interior?"

It has been said that kifātā is an infinitive, like qitāl, used as a descriptor for hyperbolic emphasis, thus not requiring the estimation of a verb. It has also been said that it is the plural of kāfit (one who contains), like ṣiyām (plural of ṣāʾim), and therefore does not require an estimation either. Alternatively, it is the plural of kift (with a kasrah on the kāf and a sukūn on the fāʾ), which means a container, like qidaḥ (plural of qadaḥ). It is applied to the earth despite the singular form of "earth" because of the plurality of its regions.

It is permitted that the two nouns [aḥyāʾan and amwātan] be in the accusative case as a state (ḥāl) from the deleted object of kifātā. The implied meaning is: "containing them" or "containing you," or "containing mankind, both living and dead." It is also possible that a verb was omitted along with its object, such as: "containing [that which] it contains," or "containing you," or "containing mankind, living and dead."

Another possibility is that their accusative case is due to being objects of najʿal (We make), with an implied genitive [annexation], meaning: "Possessors of living and dead." Or, the meaning of amwātā is the "dead earth" (barren land), as reported by Ibn Abī Ḥātim from Mujāhid, with aḥyāʾā being its opposite. In this case, kifātā would be a state of the "earth."

You know well that their being objects [of the verb] is more apparent, followed by their being in the state of a deleted [object]. Their nunation—as you have heard—is primarily for the purpose of multiplication [intensification]. It is also permitted that it be for partiality, implying the living and dead of mankind, though they are not all the living and the dead. This does not contradict the [intended] grandeur, given that it is a portion that is itself countless and vast; so take heed.

Al-Kiyā used this verse as evidence for the obligation of concealing and burying the dead. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr stated that Ibn al-Qāsim used it as an argument for [the punishment of] cutting off the hand of the grave-robber (nabbāsh), because the Exalted has made the grave for the dead like a house for the living, thus it is a protected space (ḥirz). The weakness of both arguments is not hidden.