زَعَمَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَن لَّن يُبْعَثُوا ۚ قُلْ بَلَىٰ وَرَبِّي لَتُبْعَثُنَّ ثُمَّ لَتُنَبَّؤُنَّ بِمَا عَمِلْتُمْ ۚ وَذَٰلِكَ عَلَى اللَّهِ يَسِيرٌ (7)
(64:7) The unbelievers have vehemently contended that they shall not be raised to life. *14 Say to them: 'Yes, by my Lord, you shall surely be raised to life, *15 and you shall certainly be fully informed of all that you did. *16That is easy enough for Allah.' *17
*14) That is, "This was the second basic error in which the deniers of the Tnrth have been involved in every age, and which has ultimately brought about their ruin. Although no denier of the Hereafter ever had any means of knowing, nor has he today, nor will he have in the future, that there is no life after death, vet these ignorant people have always asserted the same thing, whereas there neither exists any intellectual basis for denying the Hereafter with absolute certainty nor any scientific basis for it.
*15) This is the third place where AIIah Almighty has instructed His Prophet to tell the people by swearing an oath by his Lord that such a thing shall certainly happen. First, in Surah Yunus, it was said: "They ask: Is what you say really true Tel! them: Yes, by my Lord, it is absolutely true and you have no power to avert it.;(v. 53). Then, in Surah Saba, it was said: "The disbelievers say: How is it that Resurrection is not overtaking us? Say, by my Lord, it will surely overtake you.' (v. 3) Here, the question arises: What difference does it make for a disbeliever in the Hereafter whether you give him the news of its coming by swearing an oath or without swearing an oath? when he does not believe in it at aII, will he believe in it only because you arc asserting this on oath? The answer is: In the first place, the addressees of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be AIlah s peace) were the people, who knew from their personal knowledge and experience that he had never uttered a lie in his life. Therefore, even if they might have forged the most shameless slander against him with their tongue, yet in their hearts they could never conceive that a truthful man like him could say a thing on oath by Allah of which he himself was not convinced by knowledge and experience. Secondly, the Holy Prophet did not only present the doctrine of the Hereafter but also gave highly rational Arguments for it. What distinguishes a Prophet from others is that the arguments, however strong and cogent, that others may give for the Hereafter, can at the most make the listener admit that the occurrence of the Hereafter is more reasonable and probable than its absence. On the contrary, a Prophet stands at A notch higher level than a philosospher. His real position is not that be has arrived at the conclusion of the necessity of the Hereafter by the exercise of reason But his real position is that he has the knowledge that the Hereafter shall occur and says with conviction that it shall surely occur. Therefore, only a Prophet can swear an oath to declare this but not a philosopher. Then, faith in the Hereafter can be generated only by a 'Prophet's statement; the reasoning of a philosopher does not have the power to induce even himself to adopt it as his religious creed on the basis of his own argument, not to speak of another person. if the philosopher is really correct, he cannot go beyond 'should be or ought to be;' only a Prophet can assert with conviction that a thing "is and certainly is."
*16) This is the purpose for which the children of Adam will be resurrected; this also contains the answer to the question: what is the special need for it? If one keeps in view what has been discussed con cerning vv. 1.4 above, one can easily understand that in this universe, which has been created with the tnrth, it would be highly unreasonable to imagine about man who has been given freedom to choose either belief or unbelief, who has been granted authority to appropriate many of the things in this universe, and who after choosing the way of belief or unbelief has accomplished much good or done evil on his own responsibility by making the right or the wrong use of his authority during his life, that when he has done alI this , the good done by the virtuous and the evil committed by the criminal one should neither bear any fruit, nor should there be any time when his deeds and actions should be subjected to security The person who asserts such an irrational thing inevitably commits one of the two absurdities: either he thinks that although this universe is based on wisdom, yet a creature like ntan, who has been endowed with authority, has been created and left irresponsible here; or he thinks that this universe is a random creation devoid of the wisdom of a Wise Creator. In the first place, he makes a contradictory statement, for the existence of an irresponsible creature, endowed with authority. in a miverse based on wisdom, is clearly against justice and wisdom. In the second case, he cannot give any rational being like man should come into being in a haphazardly created, foolish universe, and how he conceived the idea of justice. Only a stubborn person could uphold the belief that folly could generate wisdom and injustice justice, or the one who has become a mental patient because of his obsession for hair splitting.
*17) This is the second argument for the Hereafter. The first argument was for its necessity and this second is for its possibility. Obviously, when God could create such a grand and wonderful system of the universe without any difficulty and when He could create human beings in the world in the first instance, it cannot be difficult for Him to resurrect the same human beings and summon them before Himself for the purpose of accountability.