Their saying, "The Hour will not come to us," is a denial of resurrection and a rejection of the coming of the Hour. Or it is a delay of what they have been promised regarding its establishment, in a manner of mockery and ridicule, as in their saying, "When is this promise?" The necessity that follows the denial is affirmed by 'yes' in the sense that the matter is nothing but its coming. Then its affirmation is reiterated, confirmed by what is the utmost in emphasis and intensity, which is the affirmation by swearing by Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. Then the affirmation is extended by what the oath is based upon, by the description with which it is described, up to His saying, "So that He may reward." This is because the greatness of the state of that by which the oath is taken indicates the strength of the state of that which is sworn about and the firmness and stability of it. This is because it is akin to bearing witness to the matter. The higher and clearer the witness is, the stronger and more certain the testimony becomes, and that which is testified about is more established and solid.

If you say: Is there a specific aspect to the description by which the oath is taken that relates to this meaning? I say: Yes, because the establishment of the Hour is one of the well-known unseen matters, and it is included in the hidden things. Its first aspect rushes to the heart: when it is said, "The Knower of the Unseen." When He swears by His name to affirm the establishment of the Hour, and that it will certainly happen, then He describes it in a way that relates to the knowledge of the unseen, and that nothing hidden escapes His knowledge, and it includes His encompassing knowledge of the time of the establishment of the Hour. Thus, what you seek from the aspect of specificity comes clearly.

If you say: The people have denied the coming of the Hour and rejected it. Suppose He swore to them with the strongest oaths and swore to them with the utmost effort of swearing, how can the oath of one whom they believe to be lying about Allah be valid for what they have denied? I say: This would be if He had limited Himself to the oath and did not follow it with the decisive proof and clear evidence, which is His saying, "So that He may reward." For Allah has placed in minds and instilled in instincts the necessity of reward, and that the doer of good must have a reward, and the wrongdoer must have a punishment. And His saying, "So that He may reward" is connected to His saying, "You will certainly come to you," as a justification for it. It has been read: "You will certainly come to you" with the 'ta' and the 'ya.' The reason for the one who read with the 'ya' is that his pronoun refers to the Hour in the sense of the Day. Or it is attributed to the Knower of the Unseen, meaning that His command will certainly come to you, as Allah, the Exalted, said, "Are they waiting except for the angels to come to them or your Lord to come?" And He said, "And the command of your Lord will come."

And it has been read: "The Knower of the Unseen" and "The Knower of the Unseen" in the genitive, as an attribute of my Lord. And "The Knower of the Unseen" and "The Knower of the Unseen" in the nominative, as praise.

And "Nor is anything hidden from Him" is read with a 'dhamma' and a 'kasra' on the 'zay,' from 'ghayb,' which means distance. It is said: A distant meadow is far from people. "The weight of an atom" refers to the smallest ant. That is a reference to the weight of an atom. And it has been read: "Nor smaller than that nor larger," in the nominative as the original of the beginning. And in the accusative as a negation of the genus, like your saying: "There is no power nor strength except by Allah," in the nominative and accusative. It is a statement disconnected from what preceded it.

If you say: Is it correct to conjoin the nominative with "the weight of an atom," as if it were said: "Nothing is hidden from Him, not even the weight of an atom, and smaller and larger, not to emphasize the negation?" And to join the accusative with "an atom" as if it were said: "Nothing is hidden from Him, neither the weight of an atom nor the weight smaller than that nor larger?" I say: That is rejected by the letter of exception, unless you make the pronoun in "from Him" refer to the unseen, and make "the unseen" a name for the hidden things, before they are written in the tablet, because their establishment in the tablet is a form of emerging from the veil, in the sense that nothing separates from the unseen except what is inscribed in the tablet.