The commentary examines several replies: the rhetorical function of the interrogation, the deniers’ prior rejection of resurrection, and whether the suggested opposition concerns deliberate fabrication rather than all truth and falsehood.
The opponents had already rejected resurrection and presented hostile explanations of the Prophet’s message. Their list of possibilities reflects their stance; it does not, simply by being uttered, establish a universal exhaustive classification of reports.
An adversary’s stated alternatives are not necessarily all the alternatives that exist.