The worker in "If indeed we are to be brought out" is "we are brought out," because before it is a verbal noun. The saying "the verbal noun in it is punishment" may be the passive participle, and punishment is the plural of obstacle. This is indicated by the correct sources. The statement of Al-Nasafi is: because the verbal noun and the passive participle - after the interrogative hamzah or 'an or the lam of beginning - do not act on what precedes them, so how if they are combined? The interrogative hamzah is in it, and the lam of beginning, and one of them is sufficient, so how if they are combined?

The intended meaning is: the bringing out from the earth, or from the state of annihilation to life. The repetition of the interrogative letter by inserting it on both "if" and "indeed" is a denial upon denial, and a rejection following a rejection, and evidence of confirmed disbelief that is exaggerated. The pronoun in "indeed we" refers to them and their fathers, because their being dust has encompassed them and their fathers. If you say: this is presented in this verse before "we and our fathers," while in another verse "we and our fathers" is presented before this? I say:

The precedence is evidence that the presented is the intended purpose of mention, and that the speech was indeed directed for it. In one of the verses, it indicates that the act of resurrection is what was intended in the speech, and in the other that the act of the resurrected is what was intended in that regard.