مَا آمَنَتْ قَبْلَهُمْ مِنْ قَرْيَةٍ أَهْلَكْنَاهَا أَفَهُمْ يُؤْمِنُونَ ﴿۶﴾ وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا قَبْلَكَ إِلَّا رِجَالًا نُوحِي إِلَيْهِمْ فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ ﴿۷﴾ وَمَا جَعَلْنَاهُمْ جَسَدًا لَا يَأْكُلُونَ الطَّعَامَ وَمَا كَانُوا خَالِدِينَ ﴿۸﴾

﴾6﴿ Maaa aaamanat qablahum min qaryatin ahlaknaahaa a-fahum yu'minoon
﴾7﴿ Wa maaa arsalnaa qablaka illaa rijaalan nooheee ilaihim fas'aloo ahlaz zikri in kuntum laa ta'lamoon
﴾8﴿ Wa maa ja'alnaahum jasadal laa ya'kuloonat ta'aama wa maa kaanoo khaalideen

﴾6﴿ No community that We destroyed before them ever believed. So will they then believe
﴾7﴿ And We did not send before you except men to whom We revealed (Our message). So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know
﴾8﴿ And We did not create them (the messengers) as bodies that did not eat food, nor were they immortal

[6] This is the response to their final criticism — the demand for a miracle.
The essence of the reply is that such miracles were indeed brought to past nations who denied the truth, the very kinds of miracles these people are now requesting — yet those nations still did not believe.
And these people are even more stubborn and hostile than them, so how would they believe?
This answer was presented because their question seemed, on the surface, to be based on reasoning — as if they were saying, “We accept the messengers, but only if they bring miracles like previous prophets.”
As for the other criticisms, which were based purely on denial and ignorance, there was no need to respond to them — except the first objection, which was about the Prophet’s humanity. That one was answered in detail later, and for that reason, it was mentioned afterward.
[7] This is the response to the first criticism concerning the humanity of the Prophet. The point is that all previous messengers were men — and the word rijālan (men) does not apply to angels, so it is clear that they were human beings.
(Ahl al-Dhikr) — “People of the Reminder” — refers generally to the Jews and Christians who are true scholars of Allah's Book and do not distort it, as well as to the scholars of the Qur’an and Hadith.
In other words, do not deny the prophethood of a human being; rather, turn to the scholars of the Book and Sunnah who can prove to you that messengers were indeed human.
Al-dhikr refers to revelation — meaning, those scholars who act upon revelation and refer to it as evidence.
In Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī, it is mentioned that it is established by tawātur (mass transmission) that all messengers were human.
Note: In the book Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn ʿan Rabb al-ʿĀlamīn by ʿAllāmah Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (Volume 2, Page 169), a question is mentioned — whether this verse proves the permissibility of taqlīd (following a scholar).
The answer given is this: Allah the Exalted has criticized those who turn away from mā anzala Allah (the Qur’an and authentic Hadith) and imitate the polytheists. So, this type of taqlīd — with the agreement of the Ummah — is condemned and forbidden.
However, the one who sincerely strives to follow mā anzala Allah, but does not yet have knowledge of some parts, and therefore accepts the opinion of someone more knowledgeable than him — this kind of taqlīd is praiseworthy.
The conclusion is that Ahl al-Dhikr refers to the scholars of the Qur’an and Hadith. So, if a person knows a scholar to be well-versed in Qur’an and Sunnah, while he himself does not have such knowledge (whether in general or on a specific issue), and he asks this scholar for a ruling, then in reality he is following the Qur’an and Sunnah.
However, as also written in this book and by Shāh Walīullāh in ʿAqd al-Jīd, if this person later comes to know a clear and authentic text from the Qur’an or Hadith that contradicts what he had followed before, then he must abandon that earlier view and follow the Qur’an and Hadith.
If he does not do so, then it becomes clear that he is engaged in the condemned and impermissible type of taqlīd.
So, this verse does not serve as valid evidence to prove the concept of taqlīd shakhṣī (binding, personal imitation of a specific scholar), because taqlīd shakhṣī means to commit oneself to follow one particular scholar — even if the opinions of other scholars are closer to the Qur’an and Sunnah, or even if it becomes clear that this scholar's view contradicts the Qur’an and Sunnah — and still not be willing to leave that scholar's opinion.
It is this type of taqlīd that Imām Ibn al-Qayyim has refuted in detail in Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn.
[8] In this, there is supporting evidence for the previous answer — that messengers were human beings, because they were not free from the need for food, nor were they protected from death and mortality.
And these qualities are not flaws for them, nor do they contradict their status as messengers.