وقالوا أئذا ضللنا في الأرض أئنا لفي خلق جديد بل هم بلقاء (32:10) بالانجليزي

(32:10) They say: *19 'Shall we be created afresh after we have become lost in the earth?' Nay, the fact is that they deny that they will meet their Lord. *20

Tafseer Abu-al-A'la Maududi

Page 415 English Traditional

*19) After answering the disbelievers' objections about the Prophethood and Tauhid now their objection about the Hereafter, which is the third basic belief of Islam, is being dealt with. The conjunction waw(and) in the beginning of the verse connects this paragraph with the foregoing theme, as if the sequence were like this: "They say: Muhammad is not Allah's Messenger," "They say: Allah is not One and the only Deity," and "They say: we shall not be raised back to life after death. "
*20) The gap between the preceding and this sentence has been left for the listener to fill. The objection of the disbelievers as cited in the first sentence is so absurd that no need has been felt to refute it. Only its citation was regarded as enough to show its absurdity. For the two parts which make up the objection arc both unreasonable. Their saying: "When we have become dust" is meaningless for that which is "we" can never become dust. Dust is the destiny of the body after it has become devoid of the "we" The body itself is not the "we". When alive, limbs and other parts of the body may be cut off one by one, but the "we" remains intact. No part of it is cut off with the cut off limb. And when the "we" has vacated a body, the "we" remains no longer applicable even in its remotest sense although the body still remains intact. That is why a sincere lover goes and buries the body of his beloved, because the beloved is no more in the body. He buries not the beloved but the empty body, which was once the home of his beloved. Thus, the very first premise of the disbelievers' objection is baseless. As for its second part, "Shall we be re-created?" this question containing surprise and denial would not have arisen, had the objectors considered and taken into account the meaning of the "we" and its creation. The present existence of this "we" is nothing more than that a little of coal and iron and lime and sonic other earthly substances got together from here and there to combine themselves into a body, which became the home of the "we". Then what happens when it dies? When the "we" has left .the body, the constituent substances of its abode which had been gathered together from different parts of the earth go back to the same earth. The question is: He who had made this home for the "we", can He not make the same home from the same substances once again and settle the "we" in it? When this was possible before and has in actual fact existed, what can hinder its possibility and its existing as an actual fact once again? These are such things as can be understood by the application of a little of the common sense. But why doesn't man allow his mind to think on these lines? Why does he raise the meaningless objections about the life hereafter and the Hereafter? Leaving out alI these details, AIlah has answered this question in the second sentence, saying: "The fact is that they disbelieve in the meeting with their Lord." That is, "The real thing is not this that the recreation of man is something odd and remote in possibility, which they cannot understand, but in fact, what prevents them from understanding this is their desire w live freely and independently in the world and commit any sin, any excess that they please and then escape Scot-free from here: they should not be held accountable for anything, nor answerable for any of their misdeeds."