Tafsir of Hud 11:97

To Pharaoh and his assembly.

The descent of the Torah only took place after the destruction of Pharaoh and his entire people, so that the Children of Israel might act according to it in what they perform and abandon. As for Pharaoh and his people, they were merely commanded to worship the Lord of the Worlds, to abandon the monstrous and abominable claim that the tyrant used to make and which the transgressing faction accepted from him, and to release the Children of Israel from captivity and coercion. From this, one understands the situation regarding the counting of [the Torah] among the verses, as well as the counting of the shedding of blood and the decrease of fruits and lives as individual verses out of the nine signs. Likewise, the counting of the overshadowing of the mountain is [subject to] this, for that occurred only for the acceptance of the Torah when the Children of Israel had refused it; thus, it is necessarily subsequent as well. Similar to this is counting the splitting of the sea and the overshadowing of the clouds as substitutes for them, for this overshadowing is also subsequent to the destruction of Pharaoh and his people.

Some of the eminent scholars have responded to the objection against including the Torah among the verses [of the mission] by arguing that validation is possible. Firstly, by what they have explicitly stated regarding the permissibility of referring a pronoun, connecting a prepositional phrase, and the like, to an absolute [concept] implied within a restricted one. Thus, His saying, may He be exalted, "To Pharaoh," may be connected to the absolute mission, not the one restricted to being with the Torah. Secondly, it may be said that Moses, peace be upon him, just as he was sent to the Pharaohs, was also sent to the Children of Israel. Therefore, "the assembly of Pharaoh" must be construed to include them, and the speech becomes a distribution, meaning: "We sent him to Pharaoh with clear authority, and to his assembly with the Torah," resulting in a laff wa nashr (rhetorical distribution) that is not in order. A similar estimation is said regarding the counting of the overshadowing of the mountain or the clouds among the verses. In the collection of Siraj al-Din al-Masri, it is noted that this question was posed by the Hafiz al-Tashkandi to Makhdum al-Mulk, who replied that His saying, "with Our signs," is a future-oriented state (hal muqaddara); that is, they were destined to be clothed with or supported by the signs and authority when sent to Pharaoh and his assembly. Therefore, the appearance of some of them after the destruction of Pharaoh, such as the Torah and the gushing forth of water, does not undermine it. Furthermore, it has been said that the giving of the Torah, collected, ordered, and written upon tablets, occurred after the drowning of Pharaoh, but it was revealed to Moses, peace be upon him, during the lifetime of Pharaoh, and he used to command his people by it and convey it to Pharaoh and his assembly. This is supported by the claim that some tablets were sent down before the descent of the Torah in its entirety, and those tablets were of wood, while the tablets containing the Torah in its entirety were of emerald, red jacinth, or solid rock. This concludes [his view].

It is not hidden that resorting to the state being "future-oriented" is something that sound taste hardly accepts. What was narrated regarding the giving of the Torah as a collection happening later, and the revelation of it happening earlier, etc., has no basis in authentic reports. What was mentioned first, concerning the connection to the absolute, and secondly, regarding interpreting "the assembly" to include the Children of Israel, etc., are things from which the arena of the Revelation should be purified. How can "the assembly" be interpreted to include the Children of Israel when it is genitively linked to [Pharaoh], and [the Children of Israel] are identified as being among the people of the Fire? I do not think you are in any doubt regarding the invalidity of that. It has been said: If "to Pharaoh" were made dependent upon "clear authority"—either grammatically or semantically, under the estimation of "an authority sent with it to Pharaoh"—it would not be far-fetched, given the suitability between it and "authority." However, there is in that what is not hidden, so contemplate it.

The specification of the "assembly" despite the generality of the mission of Moses, peace be upon him, to all the people, is due to their primary role in opinion and the management of affairs, and the following of others for them in the initiation of actions. The disbelief of Pharaoh in the signs and his indulgence in the misguidance and leading others astray was not explicitly stated; rather, it was limited to mentioning the matter of his assembly. Thus it was said: "And they followed the command of Pharaoh," meaning his command to disbelieve in the truth brought by Moses, peace be upon him, to signal the clarity of his condition. It is as if his disbelief and his assembly's command to do so were realized facts, not needing explicit mention. What required mention was the state of his assembly, who were wavering between one who guides to the truth—who is Moses, peace be upon him—and one who calls to misguidance—who is Pharaoh. Thus, [the verse] rebuked them for their choice. The use of the fa (conjunction 'so') is to intimate their suddenness in following and the swiftness of Pharaoh in disbelieving and commanding it, as if it did not lag after the sending and the notification.

It is permitted that the "command" be meant as the way and the state. It is said that the meaning of "they followed" is that they persisted in following. The fa is like that in your saying, "I exhorted him, so he did not take heed; and I rebuked him, so he did not desist." For the commission of an act after the arrival of that which necessitates desisting from it, even if it is a continuation of it, is under the title of a new action and an emergent deed. It is also permitted that the meaning is that they became characterized by what Pharaoh was characterized by—of disbelief in what Moses brought and denial of him—and they agreed with him in that. The use of the fa is to intimate their suddenness in agreeing with Pharaoh in disbelief and his swiftness toward it, as if when the sending and notification occurred, the disbelief of Pharaoh in what Moses brought occurred, and their agreement followed immediately. Do not imagine that this agreement was already established for them beforehand, because it depends on Pharaoh becoming characterized by disbelief in what Moses brought, and that only renewed for him after the sending and notification. Thus, there is no necessity to interpret it as "persistence" and to make the fa like in your saying, "I rebuked him, so he desisted." So contemplate this.

The shift from "his command" to "the command of Pharaoh" is to dispel the illusion of the pronoun returning to Moses, peace be upon him, from the beginning of the matter, and to further disparage the state of the followers. For Pharaoh is known for corruption, causing corruption, misguidance, and leading others astray, so following him is due to extreme ignorance and lack of insight. The same applies to His saying, may He be exalted, "And the command of Pharaoh is not rightly guided."

(Meaning: is not possessed of right guidance or one who possesses right guidance. Al-Rushd (right guidance) is the opposite of al-ghayy (error/misguidance). Its attribution to the "command" is metaphorical. It is as if, in shifting from "and the command of Pharaoh is error and misguidance" to what is in the noble composition, there is an increase in disparaging their action and expressing regret over their missing what contains the goodness of both abodes, namely, al-rushd.) It is also permitted that al-rushd be a metonymy for being laudable, and the attribution is literal; meaning, "And the command of Pharaoh is not one that is good and praiseworthy in its outcome."