Tafsir of An-Naba' 78:5

It has been said that this is a repetition of the preceding [verse] for the purpose of deterrence and warning, used for emphasis. The word "then" (thumma) denotes a disparity in rank; as if it were said to them: "You have a deterrence and a severe punishment on the Day of Resurrection, indeed, you have on that day what is even more severe." In this regard, it becomes as if it were distinct from what preceded it, and is therefore conjoined to it. Ibn Malik holds, concerning such instances, that it is a form of verbal corroboration, even with the presence of the conjunction particle in between; so do not be heedless of this.

It has also been said that the first is an allusion to what occurs at the time of the soul’s departure and the drawing of breath—the scolding of the angels of death (peace be upon them), the encountering of the agonies and severities of death, and the unveiling of the covering. The second is an allusion to what occurs on the Day of Resurrection—the scolding of the angels of punishment (peace be upon them) and the encountering of severe torment. Thus, "then" (thumma) is in its proper place due to the temporal distance between the two, and there is no redundancy.

The apparent meaning is that the conjunction is applied to this [latter clause], and the preceding [clause] is applied to the entirety of "Nay! They shall know." Some scholars have conjectured from the words of certain eminent figures that the conjunction applies only to "they shall know." However, it was objected that if "then" (thumma) is for temporal sequence, it necessitates a separation between the conjoined and the conjoiner by an extraneous element, unlike when it is for rank-based sequence. The way to refute the claim of "specification without a specifier" is that, in the second case, one understands the disparity of rank between the two deterrents just as one understands their disparity between the two warnings, for the deterrence follows the warning; thus, the second "Nay!" is not extraneous. This is unlike the first, for sequence in it is only realized where time is realized, and that is only in "they shall know," not "Nay!"; thus, it [the "Nay!"] would be extraneous.

The same conjecturer then said: It is not unlikely to say that the first deterrence is against their questioning, and the second is against their denial—that is, their explicit denial—and the disparity between them necessitates the conjunction "then." All of this, as you can see, is plausible.

Others have said that the object of knowledge in the first is the Resurrection, and in the second, it is the recompense for denying it. Thus, "then" is in its proper place: they shall know the truth of the Resurrection when they are resurrected; then, "Nay! They shall know" the recompense for their denial when they enter the Fire and are punished. It is also permitted that the objects of knowledge are different, and "then" denotes rank-based sequence, such that the meaning is: the disbelievers will know their [own] states, then they will know the states of the believers. The first is an allusion to physical punishment, and the second to spiritual punishment, which is more severe and humiliating.

It is also possible that the subject of "they shall know" in both instances is different, based on the assumption that the pronoun in "they are asking one another" refers to people in general. Thus, the meaning would be: the believers will know the outcome of their belief, then the disbelievers will know the outcome of their disbelief; the first being a promise to the believers and the latter a warning to the disbelievers, and the two differ in rank. The implications of this are not hidden from you.

Malik ibn Dinar, Ibn Muqassim, Al-Hasan, and Ibn Amir read "you shall know" (sata'lamun) in both instances with the upper-case ta, following the mode of turning toward address, which conforms with the addresses that follow it, to intensify the deterrence and warning. This is not upon the estimation of "Say to them: Nay! You shall know," for that is not as strong, even if there is a type of merit in it, assuming the intent is that they are asking the Prophet (peace be upon him). It is reported from Ad-Dahhak that he read the first with the ta of address and the second with the ya of the third person.