قُلْ لَا يَعْلَمُ مَنْ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ الْغَيْبَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَمَا يَشْعُرُونَ أَيَّانَ يُبْعَثُونَ ﴿۶۵﴾ بَلِ ادَّارَكَ عِلْمُهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ بَلْ هُمْ فِي شَكٍّ مِنْهَا بَلْ هُمْ مِنْهَا عَمُونَ ﴿۶۶﴾

﴾65﴿ Qul laa ya'lamu man fis sammaawaati wal ardil ghaiba illal laah; wa maa yash'uroona aiyaana yub'asoon
﴾66﴿ Balid daaraka 'ilmuhum fil Aakhirah; bal hum fee shakkin minhaa bal hum minhaa 'amoon

﴾65﴿ Say, None in the heavens and the earth knows the unseen except Allah, and they do not know when they will be resurrected
﴾66﴿ Rather, their knowledge fails concerning the Hereafter. Rather, they are in doubt about it. Rather, they are blind to it

[65] In this verse, the second central claim of the Surah is mentioned, which relates to the stories of Musa and Sulaiman (peace be upon them).
Since the previous verses affirmed that power and control are exclusive to Allah Most High—thereby negating shirk in control (shirk fī at-taṣarruf)—this verse now affirms that knowledge of the unseen (‘ilm al-ghayb) is also exclusive to Allah, thus negating shirk in knowledge (shirk fī al-‘ilm).
This is the fourth direct address to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and give him peace) in this Surah.
The “ghayb” mentioned here refers to that which cannot be known by any means—not through intellect, senses, or revelation—and this is called true unseen (al-ghayb al-ḥaqīqī).
Qurṭubī mentions regarding this verse that anything that becomes known to a human is no longer considered ghayb.
“Man fī as-samāwāt” (مَنْ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ) refers to the angels, ‘Isa (peace be upon him), and the souls of the believers that dwell in the highest realm (‘illiyyīn).
This verse is a clear and decisive proof denying the knowledge of the unseen from anyone besides Allah—whether it is inherent (dhātī), bestowed (‘aṭā’ī), bodily, or spiritual.
--- Question 1: Is “illā Allāh” (إِلَّا اللَّهَ) an interrupted (munqaṭi‘) or connected (muttasil) exception? Answer 1: It is a munqaṭi‘ (interrupted) exception, because Allah is not of the same category as “man fī as-samāwāt” (those in the heavens)—they are created beings, while Allah is the Creator. As for the grammatical case (nominative, marfū‘), in the dialect of the tribe of Banī Tamīm, nominative case for the exception is permissible due to badal (substitution). So “illā Allāh” is grammatically a substitute (badal) for man, which is in the nominative case. Ibn Kathīr reports this opinion from al-Zajjāj and al-Farrā’.
Answer 2: It is a muttasil (connected) exception. In the dialect of the people of Hijaz, using the nominative case for the exception is permissible in negative statements.
--- Question 2: How can it be a connected exception if Allah is not of the same kind as “man fī as-samāwāt”? Answer: The expression “man fī as-samāwāt” can, by way of figurative usage, include Allah with a supporting context—such as in Surah Al-An‘ām (6:3)—so in that context, a connected exception is valid (as noted in Tafsīr an-Nayshābūrī).
--- Question 3: If something is hidden from a person, it is ghayb; then if he comes to know it through intellect, senses, or revelation, is it now considered ‘ilm al-ghayb for him? Answer: While this usage may be linguistically correct, it is not acceptable in Islamic law (shar‘an).
In the Qur’an and authentic Hadiths, the phrase ‘ilm al-ghayb is used exclusively for Allah Most High. So even if something was once hidden, once it becomes known to a human, it is no longer ghayb in the shar‘i sense. (As explained in Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī).
From this verse, it is clear that anyone who attributes ‘ilm al-ghayb to a prophet, saint, astrologer, or anyone else is a disbeliever—because this verse clearly denies such a claim.
This is also stated in the commentary of Sharḥ al-Fiqh al-Akbar.
In an authentic hadith narrated by ‘Ā’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her), it is reported that when someone claimed the Prophet (may Allah bless him and give him peace) had knowledge of what would happen tomorrow, she said: “He has spoken a great lie against Allah.”
[66] This verse is a rebuke for the denial of the Resurrection, following the previous rebuke for shirk (polytheism) mentioned in verse (63).
“Bal” (بَل) here either holds its original meaning of “rather,” or it is used in the sense of the interrogative “hal”—implying a rhetorical question with a tone of denial.
The word “addāraka” (ادَّارَكَ) has been explained by commentators in four ways:
1. First meaning: Bal is taken to mean hal (interrogative), and addāraka means istahkama (to be firm or certain). The meaning would be: “Is their knowledge about the Resurrection firm and certain (that it will not come)?”—a rhetorical question implying denial.
2. Second meaning: Addāraka means ghāba (to be absent). The meaning: “Rather, their knowledge about the Hereafter is absent”—they have no access to it.
3. Third meaning: Addāraka means tātāba‘a (to follow one after another). Meaning: “Rather, their statements about denying the Resurrection follow one after another continuously.”
4. Fourth meaning: Addāraka means tasāqaṭa (to fall or collapse). Meaning: “Rather, all their means of knowledge regarding the Hereafter have fallen apart or come to an end.”
“‘Amūn” (عَمُونَ) refers to the blindness of the heart—meaning ignorance.
The word “bal” here also indicates progression and emphasis, showing the depth of their denial.
It also may be pointing to the existence of different categories among the deniers of the Resurrection.