Tafsir of Al-Furqan 25:37

(And the people of Nuh) is in the accusative case due to an implied verb indicated by His saying, the Exalted, (We destroyed them), meaning: "And We destroyed the people of Nuh." Al-Huffi and Abu Hayyan permitted it being a conjunction connected to the object of fadamarnahum (We destroyed them). This was refuted on the grounds that the destruction of the people of Nuh is not consequential to the denial of Pharaoh and his people, so it is not valid to conjoin it to it.

It was answered that it is not necessary for the destruction of those [people of Nuh] to be consequential to what preceded it in the same manner as the destruction of these [others], especially since He, the Exalted, clarified its cause by His saying: (when they denied the messengers)—meaning Nuh and those before him of the messengers, peace be upon them, or Nuh alone, for denying him, peace be upon him, is a denial of them all due to their agreement upon monotheism. Or, they denied the permissibility of sending messengers entirely.

Regarding the first interpretation, the definite article on "the messengers" (al-rusul) is for reference (‘ahdi); it is also possible that it is for comprehensiveness (istighraq), as there were no others existing at the time of their denial. Regarding the second, it is for comprehensiveness, but by way of analogy and claim. Regarding the third, it is for the generic sense or true comprehensiveness. It is as if the respondent intended that the consideration of the conjunction precedes the sequence, so the sequence applies to the sum of the conjoined entities, and it is sufficient for it to apply to a part of them.

It was said: The purpose of the conjunction is to equate and provide an analogy, as if it were said: "We destroyed them [just as We destroyed] the people of Nuh," thus the pronouns refer to them, and the messengers are Nuh, Musa, and Harun, peace be upon them—though the weakness of this is not hidden. A group chose that it is in the accusative case by an implied udhkur (remember). It was also said: It is in the accusative by an implied verb explained by His saying: (We drowned them). That this is preferable to the nominative is supported by the precedence of the verbal sentences. It is not hidden that this is only feasible according to the school of al-Farisi, in which lamma is an adverb of time; whereas if it were a particle indicating the existence of a thing by the existence of another (harf wujud li-wujud), it would not be so, for aghraqnahum would then be its response (jawab), and thus would not explain a preceding object. Perhaps the most worthy of the interpretations is the first.

(And We drowned them) is a continuation clarifying the manner of their destruction; as if it were asked: "How was their destruction?" and it was said: "We drowned them with the flood."

(And We made them)—meaning We made their drowning or their story—(for mankind a sign), meaning a great sign by which he who witnesses it or hears of it takes heed. It is the second object of ja‘alna, and (for mankind) is related to it, or it is related to an implied state (hal) of "a sign," for had it been delayed after it, it would have been an adjective for it.

(And We have prepared for the wrongdoers a painful punishment), meaning We have made it prepared for them in the Hereafter, or in the Barzakh (the interval between death and resurrection), or in both. By "the wrongdoers" is meant the aforementioned people; expressing the noun rather than using a pronoun is to indicate that they have exceeded the limit in disbelief and denial. Or, it refers to all wrongdoers who did not take heed of what befell them of punishment, thus the Quraish are included in their ranks as a primary inclusion. It is also possible that it refers to worldly punishment and other than it.