أَلَمْ يَأْتِكُمْ نَبَؤُا۟ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا۟ مِن قَبْلُ فَذَاقُوا۟ وَبَالَ أَمْرِهِمْ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌۭ
Has there not come to you the account of those who were faithless before? They tasted the evil consequence of their conduct, and there is a painful punishment for them.
ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُۥ كَانَت تَّأْتِيهِمْ رُسُلُهُم بِٱلْبَيِّنَٰتِ فَقَالُوٓا۟ أَبَشَرٌۭ يَهْدُونَنَا فَكَفَرُوا۟ وَتَوَلَّوا۟ ۚ وَّٱسْتَغْنَى ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱللَّهُ غَنِىٌّ حَمِيدٌۭ
That was because their apostles would bring them manifest proofs, but they said, ‘Will humans be our guides?!’ So they disbelieved and turned away, and Allah had no need [of their faith] and Allah is all-sufficient, all-laudable.
زَعَمَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوٓا۟ أَن لَّن يُبْعَثُوا۟ ۚ قُلْ بَلَىٰ وَرَبِّى لَتُبْعَثُنَّ ثُمَّ لَتُنَبَّؤُنَّ بِمَا عَمِلْتُمْ ۚ وَذَٰلِكَ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ يَسِيرٌۭ
The faithless claim that they will not be resurrected. Say, ‘Yes, by my Lord, you will surely be resurrected; then you will surely be informed of what you did, and that is easy for Allah.’
English translation: Ali Quli Qarai
The middle of the sura's preamble turns to history and eschatology: the fate of earlier deniers, the reason for it, and a sworn affirmation of the Resurrection they rejected. On verse 5 all the discursive sources converge. Al-Mizan, al-Tabarsi, and al-Tusi read 'those who disbelieved before' as the extirpated nations, and 'they tasted the evil consequence of their affair' as the punishment of destruction in this world, with 'a painful punishment' reserved for the Hereafter. The Enlightening Commentary fills in the roll-call the others leave implicit -- the drowning of Noah's people, the gale that seized Hud's, the Cry that took Salih's, the stoning of Lot's, and the burning stones upon the People of the Elephant -- and notes that recalling the fate of ancient peoples is among the most effective forms of warning.
Verse 6 supplies the cause. The sources unanimously read 'Shall humans guide us?!' as arrogant contempt for the idea that a mortal could be God's messenger. On the difficult phrase 'and Allah had no need' (istaghna), al-Tabarsi and al-Tusi settle on God's self-sufficiency from their obedience -- He burdened them only for their own benefit -- while al-Mizan offers a fuller second sense: that God displayed His independence of them precisely by destroying them, so that their annihilation is itself a manifestation of His needlessness.
Verse 7 answers the denial of the Resurrection with an oath. Al-Tabarsi and al-Tusi gather the lexicographers on zaʿama -- 'the byword of lying' (Shurayh), and in the Himyari tongue simply 'he lied' (al-Muʾarrij) -- while the Enlightening Commentary cites Imam al-Sadiq that every Qurʾanic zaʿm connotes falsity. Al-Mizan analyses the reply's triple emphasis (the oath, the lam, the nun) and observes that this is the third of only three verses in which God commands the Prophet to swear by his Lord upon the Return (alongside 10:53 and 34:3), 'and that is easy for Allah' rebutting their sense that it is far-fetched.
The two narration-sources read the passage through the Imams. Al-Qummi and al-Bahrani both carry ʿAli ibn Suwayd's report from Imam al-Kazim that 'the clear proofs' (bayyinat) the messengers brought are the Imams, and both identify the resurrection-deniers as the Dahriyya (materialists). These walaya glosses are rendered strictly as attributed and flagged; notably, al-Mizan himself classes such opening-verse reports as baṭn (inner sense) rather than literal exegesis.