كَيْفَ تَكْفُرُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَكُنتُمْ أَمْوَٰتًا فَأَحْيَٰكُمْ ثُمَّ يُمِيتُكُمْ ثُمَّ يُحْيِيكُمْ ثُمَّ إِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ
“How disbelieve ye in Allah when ye were dead and He gave life to you! Then He will give you death, then life again, and then unto Him ye will return.” — M. M. Pickthall
Taberî9-10. c.✓ Citation verified
Taberî reports the different views of exegetes regarding the two deaths and two resurrections mentioned in this verse ('He gave you life when you were dead, then He will cause you to die, then He will bring you back to life'). One group says this refers to being dead as sperm in the loins of fathers, then being created, then real death, then being resurrected on the Day of Judgment; Ibn Zeyd interprets it as a state of 'non-existence' (non-being), while others interpret it as being resurrected in the grave and then being killed again. Taberî rejects what he finds to be the weakest view (being resurrected and killed in the grave), on the grounds that admonishment should only serve as a call to repentance for past sins, whereas there is no opportunity for repentance in the grave; ultimately, he prefers the interpretation of being without a spirit while sperm in the loins of fathers (death), the spirit being breathed in at birth (life), the spirit being taken at the appointed term (death), and being resurrected again on the Day of Judgment (life).
وأما وجه تأويل من تأول ذلك أنه الإماتة التي هي خروج الروح من الجسد، فإنه ينبغي أن يكون ذهب بقوله: إلى أنه خطاب لأهل القبور بعد إحيائهم في قبورهم. وذلك معنى بعيد، لأن التوبيخ هنالك إنما هو توبيخ على ما سلف وفرط من إجرامهم لا استعتاب واسترجاع
Zemahşerî12. c.✓ Citation verified
Zemahşerî discusses the question of how the creation of Allah's creatures while 'dead' can be called 'causing to die' (imâte). According to him, this expression does not refer to an actual change of state, but rather to creation upon those qualities (inshâ); just as it is said 'Glorified be Allah' when Allah made the body of a mosquito small and the body of an elephant large, or when a well-digger made a narrow opening wide, there is no actual transfer from small to large or from narrow to wide. Furthermore, he notes that those who count the death after worldly life and the death after grave life as two separate instances of imâte would be forced to accept three resurrections, which contradicts the Qur'an.
وليس ثم نقل من كبر إلى صغر ولا من صغر إلى كبر ، ولا من ضيق إلى سعة ، ولا من سعة إلى ضيق ، وإنما أردت الإنشاء على تلك الصفات
Fahreddin er-Râzî12-13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Râzî, this verse emphasizes the magnitude of disbelief by mentioning a series of blessings starting with life (ihya), the most fundamental blessing given to mankind by Allah; despite coming in the form of a question, the purpose is censure and admonishment. The greater the blessing, the greater the rebellion against it; therefore, Allah first reminds His servants of His great blessings in order to deter them from disbelief and direct them toward faith. Furthermore, it has been discussed that the word 'imâte' (causing to die) can have two meanings: either directly creating as dead or being used in the sense of causing something that was first alive to die later.
لأن عظم النعمة يقتضي عظم معصية المنعم ، يبين ذلك أن الوالد كلما عظمت نعمته على الولد بأن رباه وعلمه وخرجه وموله وعرضه للأمور الحسان ، كانت معصيته لأبيه أعظم
Kurtubî13. c.✓ Citation verified
Kurtubî reports different views in the interpretation of the two deaths and two resurrections in the verse; according to Ibn Abbas and Ibn Mas'ud, man was first non-existent (ma'dum) before being created, then Allah created him and gave him life, then when the appointed term comes He causes him to die, then on the Day of Judgment He brings him back to life again. Ibn Atiyyah states that this view is the intended meaning of the verse and that the disbelievers cannot escape from it because they already accept these two states (creation and death in the world), therefore they must also accept resurrection in the Hereafter. Kurtubî also reports that the number of deaths and resurrections can be increased to three, four, or even six through different interpretations such as life in the grave, being dead in Adam's loins, and the sperm stage, and he also mentions in this context a hadith from Abû Sa'îd al-Hudrî regarding a group from the people of Hell being killed in the fire and then brought back to life.
قال أبن عباس وأبن مسعود : أي كنتم أمواتا معدومين قبل أن تخلقوا فأحياكم أي خلقكم ثم يميتكم عند أنقضاء آجالكم ثم يحييكم يوم القيامة قال أبن عطية : وهذا القول هو المراد بالآية وهو الذي لا محيد للكفار عنه لإقرارهم بهما
İbn Kesîr14. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Ibn Kathîr, this verse emphasizes the irrationality of denying the existence of Allah or associating partners with Him by describing how humans were brought into existence and given life from a state of non-existence (death), then caused to die and resurrected again. Although different narrations are reported regarding the number of deaths and resurrections (once, twice), the view of two deaths and two resurrections transmitted from Ibn Mas'ud and Ibn Abbas is considered authentic, while the views of Suddî and Ibn Zeyd requiring three deaths and resurrections are considered weak. Ultimately, this shows that the disbelievers' demand to return to the world on the Day of Judgment is in vain, because He who had power to create them in the beginning will all the more have power to recreate them.
وهذان القولان من السدي وابن زيد ضعيفان لأنه يلزمهما على ما قالا ثلاث إحياءات وإماتات والصحيح قول ابن مسعود وابن عباس ومن تابعهما
Beydâvî13. c.✓ Citation verified
According to Baydâwî, the question 'how' (keyfe) is a kind of bewilderment and censure through denying the state and attribute upon which the disbelief of the disbelievers rests; this expression means 'how do you disbelieve' and is more eloquent and powerful than the statement 'do you disbelieve' (a-tekfurûne). The address is directed to the disbelievers who are characterized by disbelief and evil speech and deeds through the method of turning the address (iltifât), and they are admonished for disbelieving despite knowing the states in which they will be brought to life after death, then caused to die and resurrected again, and turned back to Him. Baydâwî also notes that this address could be directed at both groups (believers and disbelievers) or particularly to the believers, and it may have been stated for the purpose of enumerating general and specific blessings and emphasizing the ugliness of disbelief despite great blessings.
بالله استخبار فيه إنكار، وتعجيب لكفرهم بإنكار الحال التي يقع عليها على الطريق البرهاني، فإن صدوره لا ينفك عن حال وصفة فإذا أنكر أن يكون لكفرهم حال يوجد عليها استلزم ذلك إنكار وجوده، فهو أبلغ وأقوى في إنكار الكفر، من (أتكفرون)
Comparison
Common ground
All the exegetes agree that the expression of 'two deaths and two resurrections' in the verse aims at condemning disbelief (tawbîh/admonishment) by emphasizing Allah's power and blessing. Taberî, Zemahşerî, Kurtubî, and Ibn Kathîr, as the basic interpretation, base themselves on the schema of 'non-existence/sperm stage (death) - worldly life (resurrection) - death at the appointed term - resurrection on the Day of Judgment' and reject or find weak the views that go beyond this (proposing three or more deaths and resurrections). Furthermore, Taberî, Kurtubî, and Ibn Kathîr commonly employ the method of comparing narrations from the Companions and Successors (Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Zeyd, Suddî, etc.); Zemahşerî, Râzî, and Baydâwî, on the other hand, prioritize a reading based on language and eloquence. All exegetes agree that this repeated reminder of blessings shows that the disbelievers are without excuse and that their demand to return to the world or their denial is irrational.
Differences
Taberî makes a narration-based preference, rejecting the view of being resurrected and killed in the grave through logical reasoning (the absence of opportunity for repentance in the grave) and adopts the schema of sperm-life-death-resurrection. Zemahşerî, on the other hand, addresses the matter entirely at the linguistic-rhetorical level; he argues that the expression 'imâte' is a metaphorical use meaning creation (inshâ) rather than an actual change of state, and finds interpretations that would lead to three resurrections contrary to the Qur'an - this is a clear reflection of the methodological difference of the Mu'tazilite/language-centered approach. Râzî addresses the matter in the context of a chain of blessings and rhetorical question of denial, presenting a theological framework and emphasizing linguistic polysemy by discussing that 'imâte' can have two different meanings (directly creating as dead or causing something to die later). Kurtubî displays the most comprehensive approach, reporting different interpretations that extend the numbers to three, four, or even six (grave life, Adam's loins, etc.) and also reports a hadith narration, thus presenting a pluralistic picture rather than reducing it to a single view. Ibn Kathîr, through the method of narration criticism, considers the view of three deaths and resurrections of Suddî and Ibn Zeyd as weak and prefers the narration of two deaths and resurrections which he considers authentic, thus standing close to Taberî. Baydâwî, on the other hand, completely avoids the debate about the number of deaths and resurrections, focusing instead on the rhetorical structure of the verse (the rhetorical power of the 'how' question, the stylistic device of iltifât) and to whom the address is directed (believer/disbeliever) - this shows that he shifts the matter to a different axis.
Historical context
Taberî, the earliest period representative (9th-10th century), adopts the method of comparatively reporting narrations from the Companions and Successors and making choices based on both narration and logical reasoning; this shows that the narration-heavy method was dominant in the early stages of tafsîr history. With Zemahşerî (12th century), the language and rhetoric-centered, Mu'tazilite rationalist approach comes to the fore; linguistic-logical consistency of the expression becomes more important than numerical variety of narrations. Râzî (12th-13th century) adds theological and philosophical depth by addressing the matter within the framework of the theory of blessings and linguistic polysemy. Kurtubî (13th century), in accordance with his period's encyclopedic tafsîr tradition, displays a synthesizing attitude that presents all views (narration, juristic opinion, hadith) together and refrains from reducing it to a single view. Ibn Kathîr (14th century) applies the method of narration criticism again forcefully, standing close to Taberî's method but with a more systematic distinction of authentic and weak narrations. Baydâwî (late 13th century), as a representative of a concise and rhetoric-focused tafsîr tradition (influenced by Zemahşerî), keeps the matter at the level of rhetorical analysis. In general, as the period progresses, there is a diversification from a narration-heavy approach to linguistic-theological analysis, but the basic interpretation (non-existence-life-death-resurrection schema) remains fixed in most exegetes, creating a kind of common ground.
Modern connection
The fact that exegetes have reflected on the same verse through different methods (narration, language, theology) over centuries reminds us that harmony between learning and faith can be enriched without being confined to a single mold. This diversity can make one think that in our time too, approaching a subject from different disciplines is possible with tolerance and mutual understanding, and that different perspectives can produce complementarity rather than conflict. Moreover, this reminder about the cycle of life and death offers an opportunity for self-examination that encourages a person to live with consciousness of gratitude and sincerity toward blessings.
AI analysis — not a fatwa or ruling, not yet reviewed by a scholar