Tafsir of An-Nazi'at 79:11

{Shall we, when we are rotten bones…} This is an affirmation of the denial of resurrection by mentioning a state that is contradictory to it. The operative factor (‘amil) in idha (when) is implied, indicated by mardudun (returned); that is: "Shall we, when we are worn-out bones, be returned and resurrected," despite their being the furthest thing from life?

Nafi‘ and Ibn ‘Amir recited {idha kunna} by omitting the interrogative hamza. It has been said that this acts as an informatory statement of mockery following the interrogative denial. It is considered most likely that it is linked to mardudun.

‘Umar, Ubayy, ‘Abdullah, Ibn al-Zubayr, Ibn ‘Abbas, Masruq, Mujahid, the two Kufans (Hamza and al-Kisa’i), and Abu Bakr recited {nakhirah} with an alif, meaning "a hollow bone" (nakhira from nakhr al-‘azm), meaning it has become hollowed out, such that the wind passes through it, producing a nakhir—that is, a sound.

The recitation of the majority is more eloquent; they have explicitly stated that the form fa‘la is more emphatic than fa‘ila, even if the latter has more letters. Their adage, "an increase in the structure indicates an increase in meaning," is applicable in most cases, or when the type is uniform, not when it differs—such as when fa‘ila is a noun and fa‘la is a descriptive adjective (sifah mushabbahah). Yes, that recitation (nakhirah) is more consistent with the endings of the verses, and choosing it for that reason does not imply it is equal to the other in eloquence, as some have mistakenly thought. Most scholars have held the view that the majority recitation is more eloquent, and nakhirah in that reading is interpreted as "most decayed."

‘Amr ibn al-‘Ala’ said: an-nakhirah is that which has decayed, while an-nakhiroh is that which has not yet decayed. Al-Farra’, Abu ‘Ubaydah, Abu Hatim, and others reported that the meaning is identical.