The News (3): "In which they are..."

"...in which they are differing," for the sake of hyperbole in that matter and to indicate the subject of their questioning. "In it" (fihi) is connected to "differing" (mukhtalifun), brought forward before it to emphasize it and to observe the [rhythmic] endings of the verses. The relative clause is made into a nominal sentence to indicate persistence—that is, they are entrenched in their disagreement regarding it. One is certain of its impossibility, saying: "There is nothing but our life of this world; we die and we live," etc. Another is doubtful, saying: "We do not know what the Hour is; we assume nothing but assumption, and we are not convinced."

It is said that among them are those who deny both types of resurrection, such as these; and among them are those who deny only bodily resurrection, like the majority of Christians. The disagreement has been interpreted as a disagreement in the manner of denial: some deny it due to their denial of the Creator, the Chosen (Exalted is His Majesty); others deny it based on the impossibility of restoring the non-existent specifically as it was. It is also said that the disagreement lies in affirmation versus denial, or in the varying degrees of fear and mockery, assuming the pronoun in "they question" and the pronoun in "they are" refers to people in general.

It is also possible that the disagreement lies in affirmation versus denial, with the pronoun in "they question" also referring to the disbelievers, by making the pronoun in "they are" refer to both the questioners and the questioned. All of these [interpretations], as you can see, vary in their levels of weakness, but the primary reliance is on the first. The Mufti of the lands of Rome said: "What investigation requires and precise examination demands is that their disagreement regarding the Resurrection be interpreted as their opposition to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), by considering the disagreement to be merely the emanation of the action from multiple parties, as was said regarding the questioning; for the forms ifti'al and tafa'ul are sister forms—like istibaq and tasabuq, or intidal and tanadul—where what applies to one applies to the other; not as one party opposing the other, such that each side is a 'dissenter' and 'dissenting against.' For although all [of them] deserve the deterrence and threat mentioned subsequently, the entitlement of each side to them is not because of their opposition to the other—as there is no truth in either side for the one who opposes it to deserve retribution—but rather because of their opposition to him (peace be upon him). It is as if it were said: 'In which they are dissenting against the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).'"

This is countered by the fact that it is contrary to the apparent meaning, and the reasoning he provided is not without flaws.

Abdullah and Ibn Jubayr read it as tasa'alun without a ya and with the sin doubled, on the basis that its origin is tattasa'alun with the letter ta of address, and then the second ta was assimilated into the sin.